system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Adorno's Negative Dialectics

I'm a bit stuck on finding the stark differences between Negative Dialectics (as written by Adorno) and Hegelian Dialectics. How do they differ, and what are the implications of negative dialectics on the uses of logic?
gpt
Like Hegel, Adorno thinks that dialectical philosophy takes us towards the identity of thought and being. Unlike Hegel, he sees this identity not as the triumphant result of a positive process, but the worrying result of a *negative* one: the identity of thought and being, according to Adorno, is achieved via the suppression of difference (between thought and being, etc.), the suppression of what he calls *the nonidentical*. 

For Adorno, the suppression of the nonidentical has social causes, which he explains using Marxist concepts. He claims that, in capitalism, the predominance of *exchange value* demands that *use values* be rendered as equivalent even when they are different. His idea of dialectics is tied with his anticapitalism; defines dialectics as 'consciousness of the nonidentical', and believes that a philosophical mode of thinking that recognises contradiction, recognises the nonidentity of thought and being, can point us towards a social future where the compulsion to render identity everywhere is no longer such a dominating force.