not sure exactly what you mean by "theory of revolution" but i'll take a stab at it (ha!)...
as i understand it, some anarchists, in days of the divine right of kings, thought that if the common people understood that royalty were human and killable like other folks, then TCP would stop putting up with being oppressed, and rise up. this was, i think, the reasoning behind propaganda of the deed.
then there is anarcho-primitivism, which is perhaps the most familiar of a category one could call... collapsist, i guess? the premise is that while it would be great if people would rise up and voluntarily stop using the tools that allow for our oppression as well as the oppression of the rest of the earth, people don't seem to be doing that, so big change will come when the system collapses. (edit: and when that happens, people will go back to doing things the way that so-called human nature tends towards, which is wild and free...) that's a guess, really. i haven't read anything that coherently argues what a best case scenario is from anarcho-primitivists.
then there's the insurrection model, which, like the sindicalist one, mostly focuses on tactics. insurrectos think that if people understand that the mechanics of society are vulnerable and fragile, then people will stop putting up with being oppressed and rise up. so they focus on actions that are easily reproduced and that jog people out of their ruts, perhaps.
sindicalists think that all power comes from workers, so if workers realize that they are powerful, then they will stop putting up with being oppressed and rise up. sindicalists call themselves anarchists, but obviously they're the most heavily influenced by marx, so maybe they don't count for your question?
anyway, that's what i got. maybe i'm all wrong, and someone will kindly weigh in and educate me!