There are two major problems in our society: first, not enough people get their fair share; and second, our society is too materialistic.
There is no inconsistency between 'Not enough people get their fair share' and 'Our society is too materialistic'. The statements are independent; one could without inconsistency affirm the first and deny the second or deny the first and affirm the second. Put another way : a formal inconsistency is a conjunction, the second conjunct of which is a negation of the first. If we form the conjunction 'Not enough people get their fair share (conjunct 1) and our society is too materialistic (conjunct 2)' the second conjunct is not a negation of the first. Not without further explanation or a stipulative use of language which no-one shares with Capaldi.
What appears to be going on in this example is that the assumption is being made that when it's said ''Not enough people get their fair share' the claim is that not enough people get their fair share of goods which are of primary and overriding importance, namely material goods (problem 1). This is taken to embody a materialist attitude (in the stress that material goods are of primary value) and not only that but also to embody too materialist an attitude in regarding these goods as of primary and overriding value.
With this too materialistic attitude to, or interpretation of, problem 1, we then go on to identify problem 2 by taking the attitude that our society is too materialistic. There is a kind of practical inconsistency here : an inconsistency of attitudes.
The trouble with all this is that none of the key assumptions from which the inconsistency of attitudes derives is enumerated and specified in the example. There is only an inconsistency if we grant Capaldi assumptions he has not so much as mentioned.