Based on your comment, you're summarizing dialectics as "look at contradictions" (whichever that is, because it's poorly translated let alone defined) and "ask questions and critique". I could argue that breaking up a system into variables and examining the effect of those variables and how they play with each other is not exclusively dialectical, and it's something materialist instead.

In your example, why were the collectivisations forced? Why didn't the classes in the countryside voluntarily accept collectivisation? What was the shape and composition of the opposition to that policy and what were its results? What was the internal make-up of the party within those regions that led to their successes and failures? What could be done to avoid those failures in future? Were they inevitable?

I can answer all of those questions without ever having studied dialectics: the collectivizations were forced because they go against the landowner interests, the shape and composition of opposition was mostly petty bourgeois landowners who are a byproduct of the abolition of serfdom in the late 1800s and of the New Economic Policy, the results were resistance from the Kulaks in the form of sabotage and lack of incentive to peasants to obtain increasingly large production, the internal makeup of the party was mostly uneducated landless peasants who were just beginning to understand socialism together with some city emigrees of the working class who taught socialism and organizing to said peasants, in order to avoid to a degree the failures in the future we must not underestimate the necessity for private incentives to proprieted classes, a large extent of the bad consequences were inevitable due to such a big social upheaval forced into such a short time due to external geopolitical causes. Tell me how I've used dialectics in answering those questions, and not mostly the material and quantitative study of history.