This anon is shooting from the hip with his understanding of dialectics: If I can parse out anything from your statment it is that some how dialectics presuppses the conclusion to a statment which is nothing but a matter of falsehood.
A does not inherently lead to A, rather, A can lead to X or A = X, Y, or Z; or any number of possibilities. It is the understanding of A that allows us to understand the possibilities of its future and work from there. You can understand that, for example; the falling rate of profit:
1. Capitalism depends on Profits to maintain its existence.
2.Profits require the circulation of commodities in the economy.
3. Labor power is required under capitalism to generate commodities and, as such, the circulation of commodities.
4. The generation of profits are inherently linked to the circulation of commodities.
5. The production of commodities is always being influenced by innovation
6. Innovation drives out labor power from the market causing prices to fall
7. The general trend for prices to fall, over time, lowers the total amount of profits to be made through the circulation of commodities
C: The generation of profits under capitalism can not be maintained indefinitely and, as such, the system of capitalism will eventually fault due to this inherent flaw in production among other faults.
That's just one conclusion that comes out of the implications of the capitalist mode of production, as well. It is a form of logical induction on the movement of history; Take salve societies for example;
All class societies through out history have fallen. Why should this class society be any different? All class societies have contradictions that lead to their demise. Why are we special?
If you try applying formal logic to Hegelian dialectics you are gonna have a bad time.