Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >as 'without a revolutionary movement, there is no revolutionary theory'.
> >Angela
>
> Actually, I agree with this very much. Hence the necessarily
> non-revolutionary nature of e-list theorizing (including the abstract
> comparison of the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution) at this point
> in history, here or down under.
This is also the central thrust of Mao's *Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan*. In fact, it almost tautologically follows from the priority of action to thought assumed in materialism. It does not in itself, of course, constitute an argument either for or against any particular revolutionary theory but merely explains the existence of revolutionary theory. And of course a revolutionary movement that does not become highly self-conscious is an abortive revolutionary movement -- and such self-consciousness does depend on leadership and theory or, rather, is simply synonymous with leadership and theory.
But as Yoshie points out, arguing these generalities at this time (and in the absence of such a movement) is an empty academic exercise. That is the reason I have always refused to offer any scenario for revolution. The fascination of Volume I of Mao's *Selected Works* is the gradual emergence of a theory (for the Chinese revolution) from the actuality of a spontaneous peasant movement.
Carrol