dialectically the clearest form( the immediate relation of capital and labour).It then relates this to those forms that are more remote from the production process and so includes and comprehends them, too, in the dialectical totality 1501 next section Georg Lukacs Internet Archive NOTES 33. Thus Marx says of Feuerbach's use of the termspecies'-and all such views fail to advance beyond Feuerbach and many indeed do not go as far-that " it can be understood only as the inward dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals 6th Thesis on Feuerbach 34. Nachlass Il, p. 54. [Critical Notes on"The King of Prussia and Social Reform"] We are interested here solely in the methodical implications. Mehring's question(ibid., p 30)about the extent to which Marx overestimated the consciousness of the Weavers Uprising does not concern us here. Methodologically he has provided a perfect description of the development of revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat and his later views(in the Manifesto, Eighteenth Brumaire, etc. )about the difference between bourgeois and proletarian revolutions are wholly in line with this 35. We have in mind here Bachofen's analysis of the Orestia and of its significance for the history of social development. The fact that Bachofen's ideological timidity prevented him from going further than the correct interpretation of the drama is additional proof of the rightness of the views set out here 36. On this point cf. Marx's analysis of the industrial reserve army and surplus- seq 37. Encyclopadie,$ 15 38. Capital I, pp. 234-5. Cf also Wages, Price and Profit, S.W. I, pp. 401-2 39. Cf. what is said on the ' post festum nature of the consciousness of the bourgeoisie in the essays"The Changing Function of Historical Materialism"andWhat is Orthodox Marxism? 40. a detailed examination of this question is not possible here although this distinction would enable us to differentiate clearly between the ancient and the modern world because Heraclitus'self-annulling conception of the object bears the closest resemblance to the reified structure of modern thought. This alone would clearly reveal the limitation of the thought of the Ancients, viz. their inability to grasp dialectical their own societal existence in the present and hence also in history, as a limitation of classical society. In various other contexts, but always in a way that leads to the same methodological goal, Marx has made the same point about Aristotle's economics Hegel's and Lassalle's overestimation of the modernity of Heraclitus' dialectics has symptomatic importance for their own. This only means, however, that this limitation of the thought of the 'Ancients'( the ultimately uncritical attitude towards the historical conditioning of the formations from which thought arises)remains decisive for them, too, and then emerges in the contemplative and speculative character of their thought, as opposed to a material and practical or 41. Capital l, pp 570, 572-3. Here too, as we have already emphasised, the change from quantity to quality is seen to be a characteristic of every single moment. The quantified moments only remain quantitative when regarded separately. Seen as aspects of a process they appear as qualitative changes in the economic structure of capital 42. Wage Labour and Capital Sw., p. 86 43. Cf "The Changing Function of Historical Materialism. " On fact and reality see the essay"What is Orthodox Marxism? 44. Cf. the dispute about the disappearance or increase of the medium-sized firms in Rosa luxemburg, Soziale reform oder Revolution, pp ll et seq 45. Capital Ill, p. 326dialectically the clearest form (the immediate relation of capital and labour). It then relates this to those forms that are more remote from the production process and so includes and comprehends them, too, in the dialectical totality. [50] next section Georg Lukacs Internet Archive NOTES 33. Thus Marx says of Feuerbach’s use of the term ‘species’ – and all such views fail to advance beyond Feuerbach and many indeed do not go as far – that “it can be understood only as the inward dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals.” 6th Thesis on Feuerbach. 34. Nachlass II, p. 54. [Critical Notes on “The King of Prussia and Social Reform”] We are interested here solely in the methodical implications. Mehring’s question (ibid., p. 30) about the extent to which Marx overestimated the consciousness of the Weavers’ Uprising does not concern us here. Methodologically he has provided a perfect description of the development of revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat and his later views (in the Manifesto, Eighteenth Brumaire, etc.) about the difference between bourgeois and proletarian revolutions are wholly in line with this. 35. We have in mind here Bachofen’s analysis of the Orestia and of its significance for the history of social development. The fact that Bachofen’s ideological timidity prevented him from going further than the correct interpretation of the drama is additional proof of the rightness of the views set out here. 36. On this point cf. Marx’s analysis of the industrial reserve army and surplus￾population. Capital I, pp. 628 et seq. 37. Encyclopädie, § 15. 38. Capital I, pp. 234-5. Cf. also Wages, Price and Profit, S.W. I, pp. 401-2. 39. Cf. what is said on the ‘post festum’ nature of the consciousness of the bourgeoisie in the essays “The Changing Function of Historical Materialism” and “What is Orthodox Marxism?” 40. A detailed examination of this question is not possible here although this distinction would enable us to differentiate clearly between the ancient and the modern world, because Heraclitus’ self-annulling conception of the object bears the closest resemblance to the reified structure of modern thought. This alone would clearly reveal the limitation of the thought of the Ancients, viz. their inability to grasp dialectically their own societal existence in the present and hence also in history, as a limitation of classical society. In various other contexts, but always in a way that leads to the same methodological goal, Marx has made the same point about Aristotle’s ‘economics’. Hegel’s and Lassalle’s overestimation of the modernity of Heraclitus’ dialectics has symptomatic importance for their own. This only means, however, that this limitation of the thought of the ‘Ancients’ (the ultimately uncritical attitude towards the historical conditioning of the formations from which thought arises) remains decisive for them, too, and then emerges in the contemplative and speculative character of their thought, as opposed to a material and practical one. 41. Capital I, pp. 570, 572-3. Here too, as we have already emphasised, the change from quantity to quality is seen to be a characteristic of every single moment. The quantified moments only remain quantitative when regarded separately. Seen as aspects of a process they appear as qualitative changes in the economic structure of capital. 42. Wage Labour and Capital S.W. I, p. 86. 43. Cf. “The Changing Function of Historical Materialism.” On fact and reality see the essay “What is Orthodox Marxism?” 44. Cf. the dispute about the disappearance or increase of the medium-sized firms in Rosa Luxemburg, Soziale Reform oder Revolution, pp. 11 et seq. 45. Capital III, p. 326