I think I understand the simple model of base and superstructure (but that was Gramsci's model)
The simple use of quantitative to qualitative change, and vice versa
The simple fact that contradictions can exist in a society, manifesting in the form of problems, which are symptoms of its economic systems...
I don't think its about thesis + anti-thesis -> synthesis necessarily, as the model shows...
I think its about one economic class, like capitalist to feudal lord, dominating over one class, and absorbing its birthmark attributes, before surpassing its birthmarks overall...
Or as if a capitalist upon its created proletariat, not only ruling over them, but co-opting or destroying any of its measures
To me, its about who the ruling most HEGEMONIC class is, and how it operates...
Other than that, I don't know how else to apply it, let alone know if its somewhat broadly accurate....
Correct me if I'm wrong, if not elaborate on what ye mean?
In general I try to always use historical materialism to dissect things.
In horticulture, I'm constantly using dialectical materialism for judging what I'm doing for a plant and its environment. Both drastically impact the other so it's fun to plan out that change and unfuck the contradictions. I try to do things in a way that's best for the whole ecosystem's metabolism, and especially to boost that in animals/plants/natural features.
I should actually ask how exactly?
Whatever subject I'm looking at is an active participant in its surroundings. I look for those contextual relationships where there's some kind of dynamic evolutionary feedback loop happening between them.
If it's a historical moment, I'm looking at the background reasons why. What were the economic, sociocultural, and sociopolitical things underpinning those people being in that place at that time? Did North Korea just fall out of the coconut tree or is it the product of a 70 year war which devastated and isolated it? How does its relationship to the US drive its development, and how does North Korea drive that same development in the US and Wrong Korea? What problems exist because of that dysfunctional relationship and at what point do they represent continuity of the relationship in its present state or rupture into something new? Does the material drive of North Korea's mineral wealth power American ambitions more than the ideological rhetoric they use to explain their reasons? Does the material drive of North Korea's isolation and poverty power its cultural identity and antagonism toward the west? I look for all of the roots from all of the angles I can find to explain why today is today and how tomorrow could be different.
If it's Otto Dix's Scat Players painting, I'm looking at the relationship between artist and environment. It's 1920 Germany, he's just survived a horrific war, and he's come home to a broken state. He paints three mutilated soldiers trying to play a card game with their prosthetics. What are the economic, social, cultural, and political reasons why that painting exists? What trauma to the artist has been caused by his environment and how does his painted trauma then impact that environment as a dadaist? What contradictions exist between the present state and goals of dada versus Weimar Germany? What could that trauma represented in material and social terms- a lost generation of soldiers- become if the material and social conditions of Weimar Germany decline or improve?
If it's a pollinator garden, I'm looking at the dialectics of plant-soil, plant-water, and plant-sky. How are the physical characteristics and social ecosystem of the soil going to impact that plant and how is the plant going to impact them? Is it going to fix nitrogen to a depleted soil or suffer iron chlorosis from an alkaline one? Will it improve those soil conditions over time- deeprooted grasses anchoring it and increasing organic matter- or degrade it by weakening that complex ground system? Will the tree I plant today thrive ten years from now or did I plant something that will deplete too much of the wrong mineral without metabolic reciprocation? Is the area too dry or too wet for the plant, and how will the plant impact the hydrology of that area? Will their relationship result in better drainage/water retention or worse because there's a contradiction between the root system's ability to retain water and the environment's ability to supply it? Am I planting a sensitive plant next to a roadway where the atmosphere is polluted? Am I planting a light-craving plant in the shade or a sun-sensitive plant in an area with an exposed southern face? How will the plant's growth impact the growth of surrounding plants and how will their impact on the atmosphere drive its growth? The decisions I make are years out and I build as much intersectionality into them as possible. I'm looking out for animal/insect/microbial life, for the natural features of the landscape, and the subject plant that's interacting with all of them dynamically. I'm always conscious that what I do today will have ramifications for that space in the future so I chase minimising contradictions between organism and environment.