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.