In contrast: the revolution would be direct umaconseqncia of the marxist estimated ones. Therefore, not erafavorvel Marx to the revolution exclusively for reasons ‘ ‘ altrustas’ ‘ , but they especialmenteem function of its allegiance to its theoretical and metodolgico severity that pointed arevoluo as inevitable. One is about a theoretical, philosophical implication, paraalm of any ideology. From there that Wefford places that ‘ ‘ the theory of revoluo well more than what a fruit> the proletariat according to words of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. The proper proletariat, while revolutionary classroom, also estariacondenado to disappear, giving place to a society without classrooms, therefore ‘ ‘ modode to be of the proletariat is of a carrying classroom of the potentialities the dasociedade without classrooms, that is, of the society comunista’ ‘ revolution could only give in condiesnas which the capitalism fully is developed. The commentator, supporting itself in Lichteim and critical the Introduo workmanship of the legal philosophy of Hegel, disqualifies taisinterpretaes, arguing that in the interior of the proper marxist perspective, arevoluo can occur in countries ' more; ' atrasados' ' , as it are the case of the prpriRssia, that immediately afterwards had its proletarian revolution of the revoluoburguesa.
Wefford also points Marx as a radical democrat, as much in the workmanships of ' ' jovem' ' Marx how much in the workmanships of ' ' velho' ' Marx. In this direction, pensadordefende a radical democracy that does not limit to the democracy only politics. Wefford emphasizes that it disagrees with the interpretations that had started to prevail to apsAlthusser, that it distinguishes a young Marx humanist and old Marx scientist. This because, for Wefford, the texts of old Marx correspond the umacontinuidade of the old ones. The commentator strengthens its rank to break deLandshut and Mayer (that, culminate in the economic and social inaquality.
