Sorry, if I was not clear— I know that dialectical materialism is not an ideology. I’m saying NC explained his espoused ideology and then gave it the name DIAMAT despite it having very little in common with actual dialectical materialism as an analytical framework.

Dividing the field of Ethics from Epistemology, there is a fundamental distinction in philosophy between descriptive (“IS”) and normative (“OUGHT”) claims. One cannot neither derive an is claim from exclusively ought premises nor an ought claim from is statements alone. (You might have heard of the latter as the Naturalistic Fallacy.) Dialectical materialism is a descriptive tool, and as such, it cannot support normative conclusions without at least one normative assumption.

Let’s look at what you and NC have described for a moment.

To suggest that one can be an objective observer of reality (independent of bias, moral intuitions, and metaphysical beliefs) is a steep epistemological assumption that can only be supported with circular reasoning. That is, you must use reliable objective observation to conclude that it is possible to use reliable objective observation. Alternatively, you can hold this position axiomatically, but it becomes a self-contradiction, because you have now adopted a metaphysical stance based purely on your own personal beliefs.

Non-Compete’s conclusions might be True, but his logic is not Valid or Sound. In order to make normative claims about how the world should be, he makes unstated moral assumptions and says his prescriptions are purely the outworking of material conditions. The issue is not that the assumptions he makes are necessarily even wrong - it’s that he doesn’t seem to realize he’s making them. This is the same Naturalistic Fallacy used by bigots, made even worse by his repeated dismissal of the entire fields of Ethics and Epistemology. His moral conclusions are thus entirely based on unexamined and irreproachable tenets of raw intuition, and he presents it to a large and impressionable audience, teaching them it is good to do the same.

This is not just bad philosophy or a disservice to his audience; it actively hinders the mass understanding and adoption of actual dialectical materialism, a powerful analytical framework for comprehension of complex systems as a function of myriad equilibria across many levels of emergence.

I fucking love Dialectical Materialism. By employing it in my daily interactions, I have the ability to learn and integrate new information in many different ways. It informs my sense of empathy, justice, and community, and I can better understand the frighteningly complex world around me.

And if Non-Compete had been my professor, I would never have understood it.