Trialectics?

[Comrade #138672]

I haven't really heard or read anything about this yet, but it comes to my mind now and then as a useful cognitive tool for describing interactions. Since dialectics is used to describe two conflicting class interests, one might introduce 'trialectics' to describe three conflicting class interests (the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie). I think that some Marxists focus too much on the two primary classes and tend to forget about the petty bourgeoisie, because they are somewhat forced to think of everything as dyadic interactions, like classical dialectics compels them to do.

First, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have conflicting interests, which is what Marxism usually focuses on. Secondly, there is the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie struggling, with the petty bourgeoisie desperately trying to prevent itself from being declassed. Thirdly, there is the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie struggling for a different replacement of Capitalism as it is. Then, each of these independent struggles, might even influence each other.

Trialectics could thus be defined as dialectics between three opposites X, Y and Z. It is the dialectics between both X and Y, Y and Z, and X and Z. So trialectics is nothing more than dialectics on a higher level. Still, it might help to describe triadic class conflicts.

So, what do you think? Does this concept already exist? Can it be useful to think about society like this? Or does it merely overcomplicate everything?

I came up with this when I was reading about dyads and triads. Apparently, the addition of a third member to a group of two, has a very significant impact and changes the whole structure of the group, even more so than the addition of a fourth, fifth, etc. This is why I think 'trialectics' might be significant as well. I might be wrong, though. I'm only learning.

[garrus]

Firstly,isn't dialectics supposed to be a worldview, thus is simply applicable in class struggle?So if you support it, in introducing trialectics you should define it in a general term, and then test its validity through thought experiments in concrete-ish examples.

Secondly, i don't know of a term "opposite" being non binary, although if i recall quantum mechanics includes such exotic stuff.

It seems to me it's unneeded, unless you'd be willing to come up with n-alectics eventually.After all, a binary relation acting on members an orderable (with respect to that relation) set, is still called binary, even if it involves its invocation from all tuples in that set.