Well, dialectical materialism is a framework of seeing the world and understanding how things develop and change, as well as an active method of practice. As a reply below here states: “There is a two-way dialectic between our engagement in objective reality and our interpretation of that reality. No correct practice without theory and no correct theory without mass practice.”

Understanding the framework of dialectical materialism is a good place to start with (which is what you seem to be working on right now). I am by no means an expert but I will do my best to explain my own understanding of it.

As you gain an understanding of dialectical materialism, you can begin to view things through that framework. The more familiar you become with diamat, the more you may begin to do this by default–although you shouldn’t assume your analyses are correct and air-tight in every respect just because you gradually begin to passively think in a framework of dialectical materialism. Actively thinking and applying diamat consciously is where you will begin to be able to have better comprehension of things.

One important aspect of dialectical materialist analysis is investigation into the particularity of things. This would mean seeking to gain a deep understanding of the inner struggles driving the development of a thing or process (which is more or less what we refer to when we refer to internal contradictions).

In On Contradiction, Mao talks about how every contradiction has its particularlity, that is to say, every contradiction has its own unique qualities.

He points out that it is important to observe both similarities and differences between different things, but he emphasizes that understanding the differences between things is especially important because it is what constitutes “the foundation of our knowledge of a thing”. Observing what is particular to each contradiction, observing each contradiction’s unique qualities, is how we are able to distinguish between things and understand their past, present, and possible future developments and potential changes.

On the topic of increasing knowledge of something, Mao writes:

As regards the sequence in the movement of man’s knowledge, there is always a gradual growth from the knowledge of individual and particular things to the knowledge of things in general. Only after man knows the particular essence of many different things can he proceed to generalization and know the common essence of things. […] These are the two processes of cognition: one, from the particular to the general, and the other, from the general to the particular. Thus cognition always moves in cycles and (so long as scientific method is strictly adhered to) each cycle advances human knowledge a step higher and so makes it more and more profound.

What he is saying here is that by studying particular details of things, we can gradually begin to understand larger generalities about the world. And when we understand larger generalities, we can go back into investigating the particularities again with a better understanding, and repeat the process again to improve our understanding of the generalities, and so on.

In On Contradiction, Mao also discusses the problems of “subjectivity” and “one-sidedness” in our understanding. He says:

In studying a problem, we must shun subjectivity, one-sidedness and superficiality. To be subjective means not to look at problems objectively, that is, not to use the materialist viewpoint in looking at problems. To be one-sided means not to look at problems all-sidedly, for example, to understand only China but not Japan, only the Communist Party but not the Kuomintang, only the proletariat but not the bourgeoisie, only the peasants but not the landlords, only the favourable conditions but not the difficult ones, only the past but not the future, only individual parts but not the whole, only the defects but not the achievements, only the plaintiff’s case but not the defendant’s, only underground revolutionary work but not open revolutionary work, and so on. In a word, it means not to understand the characteristics of both aspects of a contradiction. This is what we mean by looking at a problem one-sidedly.

To be superficial means to consider neither the characteristics of a contradiction in its totality nor the characteristics of each of its aspects; it means to deny the necessity for probing deeply into a thing and minutely studying the characteristics of its contradiction, but instead merely to look from afar and, after glimpsing the rough outline, immediately to try to resolve the contradiction (to answer a question, settle a dispute, handle work, or direct a military operation). This way of doing things is bound to lead to trouble. […] To be one-sided and superficial is at the same time to be subjective. For all objective things are actually interconnected and are governed by inner laws, but instead of undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really are some people only look at things one-sidedly or superficially and who know neither their interconnections nor their inner laws, and so their method is subjectivist.

Mao also quotes Lenin as saying: “…in order really to know an object we must embrace, study, all its sides, all connections and ‘mediations’. We shall never achieve this completely, but the demand for all-sidedness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity.”

In other words, we can never completely know all sides of something, but always trying to know more and more about it is what will prevent us from making errors.

I would say that when we look at a contradiction, we need to zoom in on each side (“aspect”) of the contradiction, and see the contradictions with in each aspect of each contradiction. Like this:

In On Contradiction, Mao notes that “Nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly.” When we look at the multiple contradictions that exist inside of something, we need to see which ones are “primary” and which are “secondary”. We must look at what is growing and developing, and what is old and dying away, to find out what the actual feasible solution to resolve a contradiction would be. Similarly, we must also determine this when we look at each aspect (side) within contradictions. This can be a somewhat tricky thing to understand, so I will try not to overload you with this point, but it’s something you will encounter as you learn about diamat.

Also, in regard to that point about “nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly”, you should keep that in mind as you balance between theory and practice. Both theory and practice are important in Marxism. I can see now that you are interested in studying the theory of dialectical materialism. Your understanding of it will develop, and then it will influence and advance your practice, which will develop, and influence and advance your understanding of theory.

I hope this explanation was clear. If anyone has criticisms of it please let me know.