Quoting this passage is a cheap shot: it won the Philosophy and Literature Bad Writing Contest in 1996.
But it's a good demonstration of the point that complex writing is not necessarily good writing. It is also a good demonstration that complexity is itself a nuanced concept.
For example, the Karen Russel snippet is complex but not impenetrable, whereas the Roy Bhaskar snippet is incomprehensible—but why?
If you look closely, you might be surprised to discover that the two snippets are structurally analogous: they are both lists of items separated by semi-colons.
What makes Bhaskar's snippet both complex and bad is the way the list items are a combination of abstractions, nominalisations, specialised vocabulary, obscure references, and interminable prepositional expansions.
(And if you were to keep looking, we can see Bhaskar is making it clear that in his view dialectical critical realism is bad, which we can surmise from the use of qualities such us unholy, capricious, and failing. We just can't understand why it's bad without understanding the meaning of all the specialised terms.)