Granted I’ve only read The Elementary Principles of Philosophy and On Contradictions from Mao, but the examples are still very vague and abstract. I’ve been trying to think of every day situations where I could apply dialectical materialism but I just can’t seem to understand it well enough.
EDIT: Amazing replies from everyone, everything is much more clear.


DiaMat takes a long time to come to grips with because we are consistently made to think in non-dialectical and non-material terms. We are taught to conceive of systems as being created by a higher power with objectives in mind. Your heart is there to pump blood and your lungs are there to take oxygen into your body because if they don’t your cells can’t respirate and they will die. Plants bear flowers so pollinators will move gametes from plant to plant. It’s not true, but it’s the way we’re taught to think.
It makes no more sense to say “this young man is strong and healthy so he can work for his boss and fight for his country. This young woman ovulates so she can bear children for her husband.”
If you understand that these statements are nonsense, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand that banks are not there to provide loans and credit, that groceries are not there to feed people, and that factories are not there to produce material goods. They aren’t there to make capitalists rich either. This is just a reframing of the same unscientific thinking
The unscientific way of thinking says “the system is the way it is because that’s the way it works. If it didn’t work this way, it wouldn’t exist.” It’s completely circular.
The scientific way says “This system is this way because existing the way it used to caused it to change into what it is now. Existing in its current form will cause it to change further in the future.”
Isn’t this just omitted because it’s obvious that the system is the way it is because something caused it to change? At least I’ve always looked at things that way.
“Something caused it to change” isn’t the same as “it changed itself by living the way it once did.” I know that’s granular, but that distinction is important.