can anyone explain why these faggots need dialectic materialism in particular to explain the world and not just materialism with idk scientific method, explaining how the world works?
Seems to me that the idea of contradiction is so vague you can only say this and that was a contradiction a priori.

for example lets see a qualitative change, most land animals after dinosaurs went extinct are now mammals, does this mean there was a contradiction between idk dinosaurs and fish and then the meteorite that fell was like the revolution like wtf can you say about it either than just saying things like it was. And even if we look at history, how tf is for example, the french revolution explainable through dialectics we know it was a shitshow and nobles themselves shat all over the place and then after the republic there was a new monarchy for a while... and even the commie revolution didn't last... Can't they just drop the dialectic bullshit and just say things like they are instead of trying to appear smart and failing at that?

I just don't want to work and to kill my bosses that's what's happening why do I need to believe in magical shit you can't even prove

>>17864619 (OP) How could those people understand duality (the world)?

Wanting real solutions rather than abstract theories is understandable.

Dialectics is basically Germans admitting to human fallibility in the most convoluted way imaginable. Essentially "what we think is real isn't objective reality for everyone". Dialectical materialism is basically saying we're all in the matrix and need to wake up into Marx's reality. That's why he has to claim he's using dialectics because otherwise he's just a snake oil salesman

>>17864619 (OP)
Karl Marx never advocated for historical dialectical materialism, it's a later socdem brainrot that they came up with in an attempt to become more palatable for German reactionaries. In a letter Karl Marx basically states that his method of history is just using the scientific method. You're correct to be suspicious of the concept of dialectics.

>>17864655
Well that's a shame

>>17864655
is this true? which letter?
If this is true I am a marxist again

>>17864948
>But this is too much for my critic. He absolutely must needs metamorphose my outline of the genesis of capitalism in western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course, fatally imposed upon all peoples, regardless of the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed, in order to arrive finally at that economic formation which insures with the greatest amount of productive power of social labor the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. He does me too much honor and too much shame at the same time.

>Hence, strikingly analogical events, occurring, however, in different historical environments, led to entirely dissimilar results. By studying each of these evolutions separately, and then comparing them, one will easily find the key to these phenomena, but one will never succeed with the master-key of a historico-philosophical theory whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical.

>>17864656
Happens often.
>>17864948
It was a response to some magazine which reviewed Das Kapital.

>>17864619 (OP)
Nobody knows. A bunch of Anglos rediscovered him in the 80s and just threw it out and replaced it with rational choice. It's literally not necessary.