Adorno, in Negative Dialectics writes a quick summary of the Marxist critique of political economy:

It imitates a central antimony of bourgeois society. To preserve itself, to remain the same, to 'be', that society must constantly expand, progress, expand its frontiers, not respect any limit, not remain the same. It has been demonstrated to bourgeois society that it would no sooner reach a ceiling, would no sooner cease to have non-capitalist areas available outside itself, than it's own concept would force its self-liquidation. This makes clear, Aristotle, notwithstanding, the modern concept of dynamics was inappropriate to Antiquity, as was the concept of the system.

Question: Concept, I take it is Hegelian; but is self-liquidation correct or overly dramatic? The usual term I've heard is sublation, where an antimony is resolved into a new mode, and the old mode carries on in some other manner.

Question: Why notwithstanding 'Aristotle'? I'd suggest that A made motion the central category in his theory of change (both motion and change to be understood in a wide sense) and that antinomies drive motion; this I take it, is the provenance of his usage of antimony in his first sentence.

So in essence, the notion of motion qua motion does derive from Aristotle; but this makes the last sentence problematic, why would Adorno want to compare the modern notion of motion, which is narrower than that of antiquity which encompasses motion as generation (coming to be/ceasing to be - that is change of physical being), motion as motion (change of place) & motion as alteration (change of quality)? One might say, that the modern concept arguably subsumes the other two categories, but this point was already by A in making motion as motion as the central concept in his theory of motion.

  • 1
    Adorno is speaking of "system", menaing philosophical system: Fichte, Kant, Hegel. Thus, it seems to me that its ref to the Aristotelian concepts of "dynamics and system" has nothing specific to do with "theory of motion", but with change in a more general way. Change is related to "progressus" and "dialectic" and the ever-changing nature of the bourgeois society. Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 14:53
  • 1
    I think he is pointing out that Capitalism relies on a continuing bubble, which must pop when it has enclosed the culture. But the modern notion of inertia allows for motion without action, in a way that antiquity does not. We understand homeostatis in a different way, through dynamics. So a stable economic system that simply requires maintenance and not growth, is possible.
    – user9166
    Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 19:00
  • @jobermark: I can't say I've ever heard the whole of capitalism as a bubble ;). Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 21:10
  • That is 'bubble' in the stock-market sense of uninterrupted growth in value. Prolonged stagnation would not maintain the middle-class, who have purpose only in creating efficiencies. Stasis has no need for new efficiencies.
    – user9166
    Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 21:24
  • @jobermark: sure; I take it Adorno, given what he's quoting, is supposing that stasis is only ever a temporary phenomena. Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 21:46

1 Answer 1


"Heraclitus of Ephesus on the western coast of Anatolia in modern Turkey (535-475 BCE) posited that all things in nature are in a state of perpetual flux, connected by logical structure or pattern, which he termed Logos. ... The Eleatic School, called after the town of Elea (modern name Velia in southern Italy), emphasized the doctrine of the One. Xenophanes of Colophon (570-470 BCE) declared God to be the eternal unity, permeating the universe, and governing it by his thought.[7] Parmenides of Elea (510-440 BCE) affirmed the one unchanging existence to be alone true and capable of being conceived, and multitude and change to be an appearance without reality." (From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Socratic_philosophy on 12 Sep 2017) It could be argued the most ancient view in history is related to the Eleatic view about the One unchanging cosmos because change was frowned upon by despotic leaders.

Aristotle regarded the First Mover, his Absolute. The First Mover moved. Socrates regarded "hesis" ("kinesis"/movement) supreme and stated God revile(s) "stasis" (constance). Jesus died, partly because of his kenotic rejection of the life giving force of movement. He did not leave Jerusalem, but could. Socrates, as well, died, partly because he did not decide to move to Crete.

Plato, according to Popper, wanted to "arrest all change". Marx opposed new ideas and called labor "the creator". Marx, according to Adorno's summary, could have been more in line with Plato than Socrates. The Socratic book, The Republic, however has been presented as a communist text, partly because of communal property, promoted in it.

It's complicated and I do not claim answering the question, but knowing of the two ancient views ("hesis" and "stasis") of divinity, resolves some thoughts, regarding the question. "Hesis" meant "a going forth" or leaving a place.

"Stasis literally means “standing” or “taking a stand.” In Classical Greek the word denotes disagreement, dispute, internal conflict, civil strife, and even civil war. References to stasis abound in Greek literature, from the Homeric epics through to Hellenistic times." (The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com on 12 Sep 2017)

Most people prefer constant circumstances when financially secure, whilst others who are not financially secure, prefer change. Marx regarded technological change negatively because new technology, caused by new ideas, replaced labor.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .