Revolution take two.

The problem the Brumiar insists is not that revolution stands upon a cusp of time. Or problem as revolutionaries is that we do not know what they ought to look lie now. If one then follows the old schemata for revolutions, then Dickens is right.

The power of the revolution is ultimately to dislocated a society into factions, factions that they play out a drama beyond reason or point.

However Marx suggests that is not all are revolution need be.

One the contrary what one needs to aim for is something far more vivid, and real. A revolution that does not relax into a language, A revolution that will have the rewored the rules of on,w a revolution needs to be thought as it occurs.A revolution that cannot then be contained within a past, and is not 'over' in its radical phaze the moment it breaks out.

Marx therefore present us with the need to rethink revolution. Or better to rethink the nature of exactly who the revolutionary is. Maybe the old profession, is not enough. One genuinely uncalled and unbidden, and yet timely, a revolt needs to come from the blue, and in the giving not merely re-throw the past, it also needs to form a radical break with it. It must then not merely be the words which force what was to appear to be that which lead one forward. It must rather be that which ends the past, and breaks with it. That change which, like industrialization makes the past utterly unthinkable.A revolt which makes words meaningless and empty, and ghosts powerless.

A revolution not then of political stridency, but one of those other revolution of technology.

That is Marx's model is surely the industrial revolution. A revolution whose time and place is impossible to pin down. A revolution that was named (or mis named) across an epoch. a revolution which sunk into the consciousness of the manufacturing peoples only after the event ( of else as a political word, a moment of policy within a number of events). The revolutions, the type of revolution, Marx really values are then the blind silent revolutions of technology: Remember when Marx wrote the term industrial revolution was not known. The changes he saw everywhere lacked cogency. They formed the a blind revolt; a sequence of nameless mythless changes.

A revolution like the one we are in at the moment(which combines; broad band; to worry about climste change and appropriate technology to bio chemistry as engineer to complexity theory, to ....,A revolution all around us, but one that not be known yet) but will surely have some kind of age at some point.

Dickens might then have revolution as event right but Marx insists, but such events do not cover all events. There are those revolts which are different from revolutions as events. There are this nameless silent sequence of interlinked changes that occur as a seed of technological change is such that humans need and use moving categories to think think (and so assume change, an thereby make it possible),. Real revolution, the final revolution will occur then when this change echoes into political language. That is when it subsumes an event within a sequence of changes, that cannot be exactly located.

Marx's gambit is then that this move, this throw of humanity into a technological type revolution is possible. Our problem then of course is simple. is this possibility like the second coming- and always possible but actual or does its very possible make political revolution powerful?

A problem to mull over.