The thin monetray line

It is always said that the extreme of communism and capitalism loop back on themselves:

One can easily have anarchist of the right and the left: They talk the same talk about survival and individuality. The rant against government and interference in the same voices.

And yet between these two lies a very deep schism. The chasme of individuality and money. A chamse only a hairs breadth wide, and yet uncrossable.

For the leftwing anarchist come communists, anarchy is what follows from the absence of humanity. It is therefore how one character ones being is open to flow into and though others. it is the power to be many things in oneself and through others. one might be 'self reliant' and yet that reliance is merely because one knows one is multi faceted. it reflects then the ability to flow across many mind, and to use other is that flowing. Anarchy reflects then the inestimable ability of humans to share what they are with others, and do so in free form.

On the right the same talk of withdrawal and the same rejection of authority is had, and yet for utterly different reasons. The motivation is not the following of individuality so much as the bastion f the self and the family. One is therefore an anarchist because one is a self. It is in the defence and the defiance of the self that one is and asserts ones being.

As such money to the right wing anarchist is not necessarily wrong. It presents is a sense the codification of their anarchy. That is the medium between all things. A medium of the meta market, and so beyond the state. A medium in which individuals finds their possession announce or discover their freedoms through them. Money therefore is the anarchic flow within which the rightwing individualist wants to pitch a being.

Money is therefore the point at which the rightwing break upon everyone else. that is it is the sole point f trust between themselves and everyone. The point they accept that anarchy needs others, at some point.

The opposite is then the case for the left. Money is the sole point at which all trust all sharing breaks. But is therefore the point at which there is no trust and no value beyond that inspired in the money relation. Money is the point at which the true anarchist ought to turn way (or ought rather to talk about sharing the land). It is the point one cannot have.

This difference is then a very real one. to be an anarchist and belief that one makes ones own laws is in a sense one say nothing. So many humans are there: We all make the empiric laws of our own minds, and tell our own stories within them. The real game is to understand how that position of priveldge links one with everyone. Is the link via an individuality and the one sharing indviduals create, namely money? Or is it because all individuality as all laws are lost in the being of the anarchst. The division then really matter.

The trouble actually is, though with being a human is that it is very difficult to hear this vital difference. The problem then of the chasme between left and right is not that it cannot be bridged but rather that it can a little too easily: Tyrants of all shapes and forms jump over from the right wing to the left: The move is simple- one forgets money (or sees it only for personal gain, and not as a collective thing) , one keeps ones individuality, but the lose sight of everyone elses individual: Others become the facts or numbers on which ones own being is empressed. One becomes then (at least in ones own eyes) the micro-managing master of the universe. Running the other way advertising takes the fact that humanity cannot hold onto its own emotions, and uses this fact to make money or politics with.

Monsters are born at the chamse. Better they naturally flow from it, once it is opened.

And to close such a rift, such a point of difference which cannot be heard, would take a very great conjuring, it would take a revolution; and Marx of course hopes he is the wizard of that particuliar spell.

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.