This is really bad philosophy, and an extremely crude representation of dialectical materialism. It’s articles like these that make me see why John Roemer called dialectics “the yoga of Marxism”- when you maintain that ‘internal contradictions’ inhere in all that exists, you can easily (though unconvincingly) explain them away when they crop up in your arguments.
I think, at its most basic level, the article confuses a presentation of an alternative view with an argument against another view. It sets up ‘materialist dialectics’ as an alternative to ‘metaphysics.’ It traces the origin of metaphysics to the ‘17-18th centuries,’ when, in reality, the provenance of metaphysics goes at least as far as Aristotle. Without making reference to the work of any philosophers, it flatly claims that, in the past as now, metaphysics “does not recognize the emergence of the new.” These claims might be more plausible if an argument were offered in support of them, but that is nowhere to be found.
We also have the most basic of logical errors to be found in the contradictory phrase ‘For it (dialectical philosophy) nothing is absolute.’ If, as the article goes on to claim, dialectics are an ‘essential truth,’ then it would appear that they make up a fundamental component of the structure of reality- and henceforth be the very kind of absolute truth the article earlier denies. At a more basic level, of course, the claim that ‘nothing is absolute’ is in and of itself an absolute claim.
I also have yet to come across a convincing explanation as to why, on the orthodox Marxist view, ‘internal contradictions’ inhere in all phenomena, and this article merely takes this as a statement of fact rather than offering reasons why this is the case. Despite the article’s self-professed commitment to the principles of science, the insistence on the presence of internal contradictions defies an important idea in the history of science- Ockham’s razor. In its most basic form, Ockham’s razor states that in considering two theories with roughly equal explanatory power, we should favor the simpler one. So, if we have a theory of reality that works just as well as this form of dialectical materialism, but doesn’t posit the counterintuitive and unfalsifiable idea that an object must contain internal contradictions in order to exist, we should use the former as our mode of inquiry.
I see this article as part of the rather troubling trend to denounce any idea outside the direct ‘non-revisionist’ heritage of Marx as wrong merely because it is ‘bourgeois’ or ‘reactionary.’ This line of thinking, in addition to being intellectually irresponsible, also contradicts Marx himself. He saw the capitalist system as the womb in which socialism would grow and out of which it would be born- so ideas stemming from that system, even from ‘bourgeois’ sources can have a role to play in the development of a more egalitarian world.