Divergence is a comparative dialectic. Technically, divergent values expect the emergence of a new value. Like Hegel said, the new value is the convergence of the old properties.
(There is an added identity at the margin of existence. See “The Added Identity” by griffithlighton, published on WordPress.)
Dialectical materialism derives from Hegel’s work and, like it or not, modern economics naturally uses this method of analysis all the time.
(What is the added identity to be measured at the margin?)
For example, numbers are out on current compensation rates. Big-corporate CEOs are compensated at a 300% higher rate compared to everybody else. What the divergence actually measures is the expected rate of debt–the obligation, which conforms to a moral-comparative value (a measurable, material “thing”) that Objectivists describe as delusional.
According to dialectical materialism, the measurable divergence of the values is “alienation” of real and actual identity. The property that emerges from the comparable difference is (sigma) the sum of the squares, which is an idealistic approximation of what actually exists (or like Kant said, measuring the moral imperative that conforms–obligated–to a natural existence). The values are never really alienated but convergent, forming a comparative dialectic, like the scientific method, to describe an obligation that (like Objectivists say) always exists no matter what.
Capitalists say that people have a moral obligation to pay their debts; but what happens if the rents are reversed. What is the emergent property?
If (like Adam Smith said) people are paid what they are really worth (measured by the amount of debt obligation), we very readily see that the values are not really alienated but, instead, morally obliged to a natural existence (a free-and-open market) measurably knowable by the numbers NOW!
To actualize the numbers now, on demand, Vote For Bernie Sanders!