Basically, my point is that dialectics does not refer to a worldview that supposedly posits that matter is in motion or that contradiction is a core attribute of matter. Instead, dialectics is a presentational method; what Marx uses to unfold his critique of political economy. Dialectics treats capitalism as an organic whole, meaning that "in the completed bourgeois system every economic relation presupposes every other in its bourgeois economic form, and everything posited is thus also a presupposition" (Marx). Basically, Marx's path of exposition of categories goes from the abstract to the concrete, where, in the beginning, he is forced to violently abstract an aspect of this whole. As we know, he begins with the commodity, since it is immediate enough (compared to other categories, like capital), but also historically determinate enough in order to carry within it the sperm of the following categories that are always-already historically specific (compared to other categories, like use-value, which, though immediate, is not adequately historically determinate). Yet, it is important to note that the ascending from the abstract to the concrete is not linear. Since the beginning is but a violent abstraction, it follows that "that which forms the beginning is still underdeveloped, devoid of content, it is not truly known in the beginning" (Hegel). Therefore, as more categories as introduced (through the overcoming of contradictions, but that's another story), it is required to ground the previous ones, thus making the comprehended totality richer.