What are some good books on dialectical and historical materialism? I'm aware of Stalin's pamphlet...

Stop thinking like this at once. Not everyone has the time to read theory, short works are 100% necessary.
Why even post your take?

It's just useless. If you go by his "laws" you will never understand Marx. Go through Capital collecting example uses of those "laws" in use, you won't find any.

What you are saying isn't ringing a bell. In fact, this is so far of base that I had to scroll through the last twenty or so pages just to make sure I wasn't having some massively autistic mistake. Perhaps I had straight up forgotten to finish the book? Nope. Turns out this take is just divorced from any meaningful character.
Dialectical materialism isn't something you would cite in your magnum opus as proof for any economic philosophy. It's a framework for viewing the world, and quite possibly the best one in existence. Again, I extend my offer however. I'll expand it even.
Quote any part of this book you think is wrong and we can discuss. My patience eis kind of wearing thin at this point so make a point or stop posting honestly.

Are you sure you read the book? A simple look at the table of contents should make it clear that he views dialectics as a few rigid rules, which he calls "laws" of dialectics. Which, despite its obvious shortcomings, is still a better view than claiming that it is a "framework for viewing the world," which couldn't be farther from the truth! Anyone who thinks that Marx's dialectics is aimed at interpreting the world as a whole instead of being a very targeted attack to achieve a definite goal needs to seriously consider that they might be functionally illiterate. Which is almost certainly the case with you, who, despite claiming that Marx used those "laws of dialectics" in his thinking, can't show proof of it in his own work! If you claim that you cannot show in his work how he thought, how can you claim that he was "dialectical?"

The table of contents is a selection of laws? You mean definitions, right?
I'm done with this discussion. Cite what you are talking about or go masturbate somewhere else. You are officially cut off from the (You)s.
Lol
Interesting that your refutation of a philosophy is how it proves things you don't agree with. What a shame it is to be in the dustbin of history. All philosophies lead to interpretations of the world, this one is just factual. Seriously, refute anything, anytime. I might respond to you tomorrow if your posting shapes up.
Literally what. The entirety of historical materialism is a look at the change of societies modes of production, which is 100% dialectical.
I just want to make it clear that you are actually cut off from my (fairly quality imo) (You)s unless you actually cite issues with his understanding of dialectics or actually make a criticism of dialectical materialist thinking.

what's the name of the big book, or can you link the thread? I couldn't find it

Marxism isn't simple, and dialectical analysis certainly isn't simple, so something like this will only mislead people. Stop being retarded.

See for an overview of why you're full of shit tbh

Already looked it over. Marx was a naturalist,(which is still materialist), Engel was the main man behind DiaMat, and Marx and Engel didn't have the same thoughts. None of this changes the validity of DiaMat, or that historical materialism is dialectical and materialist.
This is sophistry. You can't just say, "This is simplistic so it can't explain something complex". You would have to prove the simplicity, prove it fails to explain the concept, prove that DiaMat is too complex for this book to explain.
By your logic (the book is too simple) if we wrote the book in code it would gain some special "Dialectical knowledge". If anyone wants to point out how it over simplifies Dialectical Materialism, feel free. Great area to critique the book on, but the more this posting goes on the more I believe you to be incapable, either too lazy or too ignorant. So why even post at all?

So I went back over the book again, and found him referring to how quantitative changes eventually cause qualitative changes. Guess I'm btfo, right? Nope, for one, he calls it a "general rule", which more or less just shits all over the "rigidity" of these laws. It also happens that he is right, quantitative changes really do lead to qualitative changes. I'm sure there are other things he has referred to as law, so why don't you just simply point to these moments and what is wrong with them??? Really not feeling like rereading this book to pick out what you are criticizing to point out the flaws or, maybe to agree.

I'm tired of trying to get this to work. 8ch.net/marx/res/6890.html#q6894

Plato's apology
Plato's symposium
Aristotle's politics
Max stirner's the individual and his property
in that order
When you're done, read das kapital in german

Are you actually illiterate? Your reading comprehension is horrible.

I'm not trying to refute "a philosophy." First of all, dialectics is a method, not a philosophy. Second, all I claimed is that Politzer's "dialectics" has very little to do with Marx's.

I never claimed that Marx didn't use dialectics, I'm just wondering how you can claim that Politzer's "laws" are a faithful representation of Marx's thought process when you can't even point to evidence in the works that contain his thoughts? If these "laws" are so accurate, it certainly wouldn't be hard to point to sections of Capital where we can witness Marx using them, right? But you can't, because you have never read Capital and take Politzer's propaganda book (which you probably didn't read either) for granted.

The German Ideology.
Anti-Dühring.

Get reading

Also read this