I have so many questions about this...

What would be the alternative to dialectical materialism? Is there such a thing as non-dialectical materialism?

How do we know any of this is true? What are the data or supporting arguments to justify dialectical materialism? Is dialectical materialism even falsifiable, and if so, how?

Why is contradiction necessary? Why couldn't forces act unopposed, or in concert with each other? 

Why would conflict necessarily lead to progress? For example, nuclear war that ended civilization would not be progress. Similarly with development - the conflict that resulted in extermination of Jewish artists and financiers did not "develop" Germany in any meaningful way. WWII putting the world on a war footing and redirecting industrial production also set us on a path toward high pollution and carbon emissions, and so on.

If conflict between forces leads to progress, then why would states purportedly based on Dialectical Materialism be one-party states? Why would their judicial systems dispense with presumption of innocence or independent counsel for the accused?

Why would class struggle be profoundly more important than other forms of social struggle? 

How do you decide which groups of people constitute a class, and how do you decide which classes are oppressors or which are oppressed? Isn't it possible that a class could have some advantages and other disadvantages, or that there could be give and take?

What if the oppressed class just keeps losing? Is there some kind of destiny to guarantee that they will win eventually? How do we know that? What is to prevent an oppressed class from being co-opted and becoming oppressors? What is to prevent an oppressed class from simply switching places with the oppressors, becoming the new oppressors of new oppressed classes?
spam lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor creativity violence