Michael:
Ceratinly, linking the design of the space shuttle to the size of the horse's posterior in the Roman times is overstreatched a bit, to say the least (it is humor after all) - but the exaggeration does draw attention to a frequently overlooked factor in collective (including economic) behaviour - habits, customs, rituals, social expectations etc., in a word - stock knowledge as sociologists call it.
My favorite example is the QWERTY keyboard layout- which was initially designed to slow the typist down (since the first typewriters jammed frequently) - a convetion that even BIll Gates with his trmendous propensity for planned obsolescene did not dare to break. Another example is the US measurement system - that is extremely cumbersome, counterintuitive, and impractical (especially when fractions are involved) - but persists by the sheer power of habit and inertia (even though scientists use the much more efficient metric system).
Another example of ritulaitic behavior disguised as rationality is corporate contingency planning in situations that are basically untrollable given current technology, such as nuclear explosions (either war-related or industrial accidents) or oil spills. These "plans" are nothing more than rationalizing rituals to give the involved stakeholders an illusion that they can control what they are doing.
So the point I tried to get across is that explanations seeking either beneficial or evil rationality in human behavior (cf. neo-classcial "invisible hand" or the world-system theories) is a fallacy of confusing rationality with rationalizations. Everything can be ex-post-facto rationalized by smart people (that is the amazing power of human brain!) - but that does not mean that the actual social actors were rational at the time of making decisions that are subejct to our explanations. Most likely, they were not due to two factors: "bounded rationality" (imperfect information) and the role of "stock knowledge" and related cognitive factors (such as framing) that affect information processing & behavior.
The implication of this train of thought for social activists is to be wary of "systems" - such as "capitalism." It is one thing to construct a theoretical model that simplifies, exaggerates and ignores certain things for heuristic purposes, and quite a different thing to maintain that such models and kindred abstractions have a real-life existence. In all likelihood "capitalism" i.e. the economic principle of profit-maximization through expropriation of labour-power, commmodity exchange and monopoly power is but one of many social forces that shape modern organization of the economy. Maintaining that it is the only or dominant force is tantamount to reductionism that ignores a plethora of other forces, such as social institutions, traditions, strategic location, or simply accident.
I think we had that debate before in connection with Brenner's position advocating the importance of social institutions in capitalist development in Europe - which some more "orthodox" marxist-leninists view as a reactionary heresy.
In sum, it makes little sense to me to look for "contradictions" within the "system" - let alone hoping that such contradictions will somehow bring the social organization of the econonomy down. Contradictions belong to the realm of thought, not reality. Everyday life is full of contradictions embedded in multiple social institutions, which nonetheless exist. Studying those instiutions is more fruitful that searching for contradictions that will destroy the rule of capital (which is tantamount to magic or prayer - they are all based on a belief that the realm of the mind affects the material world).
wojtek