This short booklet, which needs to be rewritten, touches on the issues of dialectic in a different context.
Dialectical materialism is a dead subject but echoes a dozen legacies in world history, each seeming more confused than the last.
The original sourcing here might well be Indian where the tradition of Samkhya is the source of much that comes later. In fact, we suspect that the version we have now is a decayed version of something more ancient.
There is an inherent set of ideas as to all of this but a narrow view on one history explains a lot here: lo and behold the Samkhya passed into the Roman Empire, we suspect, via migrant yogis, and there it became the basis for Trinitarian theology in the Christian tradition.
Amazing as that is. The absolute muddle of thought in the theologians suddenly makes complete sense if seen as a translation of Samkya, and the outrageous grafting of ‘god theism’ onto that Samkhya. The history here is lost and the results passed in some fashion into the islamic world where sufis, one must guess, took it up and tried to sort it all out. Much later then we see the work of a figure like Gurdjieff appear from that world with a new and cogent perhaps sufi version of Samkhya. That in turen was taken up by J.G. Bennett who produced a remarkable version, the first to make sense, in his The Drawmatic Universe. This rightist New Age brand outstripped the oddity called ‘dialectical materialism’ and with something that makes the marxist brand look a bit anemic.
I doubt if any of these traditions have been able to sort out their confusions here.
Marxists who see this history would be wary of the resemblance but inferior treatment of ‘diamat’. The left can indulge this as history but doesn’t need any of it for a practical path to socialism.