This is all new territory to me, but could someone tell me if Scandinavian socialism would be regarded as an example of synthesis?

Hi Candide, cool name.

Don't know a lot about Scandanavia, but I suspect that you could argue that those countries have synthesized positive elements of capitalism and communism relatively well. Going a bit further left wing, and more controversial, you could also look at the version of socialism emerging in Venezuela and Bolivia.

You can however find elements of balance (with the synthesis of the polar opposites of collectivism and individualism) throughout the world. You could for example look at the strong opposition to the Qld Government's proposed asset sell-off.

David F, You would do well to have a think about Grok's comment, "..let me point out it would be misleading to give the impression of dialectics -- hegelian, materialist or otherwise -- as being primarily the product of the human intellect."

The dialectic does not only describe intellectual concepts, but also the actual manifestations of nature. (Also, I didn't ask the people that run my blog to mention that I am a Taurus. They did it for themselves. I'll see if I can remove the reference.)

Grok,

I am happy to criticize Marx, but if you read the other articles that I have posted on this site, you will see that I am just as hard on Adam Smith and David Ricardo. I don't like extremists from either end of the spectrum.

The problem with dialectic and its Marxian offshoots is that it is unfalsifiable. Since anything can be described as a 'swing' between two 'extremes' -- especially when you get to pick the 'extremes' -- there is no way that any claims made for a particular 'dialectic' can ever be proven false. Although this sounds good -- and it certainly sounded good to Marx -- more competent philosophers like Popper have shown that claims which cannot be disproven contain no information: they do not tell us anything we didn't know already. Marxism, like Freudianism, environmentalism and religion, cannot be falsified: not because it is true, but because it says nothing meaningful.

Aristotlean, Hegelian and Marxian dialectics are far more than simple syllogistics. Just as these dialecticians were far deeper thinkers than us modern day hacks! Hegel trumped Newton's mechanics and, it has been recently argued, anticipated Niels Bohr's understanding of the structure of the atom by a century and a half! using nothing but dialectical thought. Similarly Karl Marx's dialectical critique of political economy is more accurate and relevant now than it was in his own day. This is not "my opinion"; it is an acknowledged fact from people in the know on both sides of the political spectrum.
If people care to go beyond prejudice and "common sense", they need do some serious reading, like I have!
The communication revolution breeds ignorance!

Dear Gilbert Holmes,

The dialectic is a human description of a process. Whether it is a valid description or not a human description cannot be anything but a product of the human intellect.

David F,

I would suggest that all manifestations of nature can be understood to exist between polar extremes. Neutral between positive and negative, specific depth between deep and shallow, etc. The dialecic is another manifestation of that polarity.

Just because we are able to observe something as being polar, doesn't mean that it is not in reality polar.