>based on a far broader collection of historical literature on the subject
>than the standard Marxist analyses, is a proposal for wide theoretical
>changes to the whole concept of the development of new modes of production
>and the consequent conflicts, for example and a much less restricted use
>of dialectical materialist method for analysing historical developments in
>general.
>Had you read the lines you would have discovered that the final appeal of
>the article was not for restriction of book learning, but of book worship,
>i.e. the argument from authority and orthodoxy rather than from theory
>tested by evidence collected from historical practice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/007141858X/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3994204-3064109
>Had you read the lines you should have realized that the use of the
>disturbing term "inimitable" as regards Mao's works was IRONIC.
>You protest being patronized while demonstrating
>1. That your knowledge of theory is inadequate for an argument on the issues
>2. That the same could be said of you acquaintance with the historical
>material
>3. That your reading skills are seriously compromised by a fertile and
>fantastic imagination.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684868016/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3994204-3064109