I shall try to drive a wedge between two familiar views of the possibility of democracy in the transition to socialism. One of these views is that after the triumph of a revolution an authoritarian state is inevitable. The tasks set by the transitional period call for authoritarian decisiveness. The other view is that the group that assumes power loses legitimacy unless it promotes full direct democracy in the form of a system of councils. The revolutionary triumph was, after all, based not just on such a group but also on a broad movement for enhanced participation.

A false dichotomy

The Leninist view of The State and Revolution gives support to each of these views, without however making clear how they are to be reconciled. On the side of organizational structure, his model contains a hierarchy of councils – of Soviets – rooted in the activity of popular bodies. The highest soviet is linked to this base through the democratic selection of delegates. On the side of tasks to be accomplished, his model contains a list of repressive tasks that can be performed only by what he calls a dictatorship. The transition must begin the construction of a socialist society, and this calls for confronting the counterrevolution and insisting upon discipline.

Commitment to the Leninist model has created the illusion that full-blown direct democracy is on the agenda for a transitional period.