regarding democracy i think the biggest distinction to make is between democracy in itself, that is, a process by which members of the group participate have some kind of equivalence in decision making, and democracy in a class society.

That latter can be split further. Bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy.

I'm less concerned with the definition of "subordination of the minority to the majority" and more concerned with the means of the democracy as a political mechanism to consolidate proletarian class power.

Democratic centralism was supposed to be a means of doing this. Whereby members of the party all have an equal say in terms of input and criticism, but they remain centralized in their tasks for the party. This was one form of proletarian democracy.

Another was the soviet system. But again, the soviets were not politically neutral, and many were diverse in their political makeup. Some were even against the bolsheviks.

Point being that democracy is a means and it only goes so far. Bourgeois society loves it because it meant power to the capitalist over the monarch. They imbue with the cult of the individual.

State and Revolution is a great text and one of my favorites. But it's important to remember Lenin's own forward. If memory serves me correct, he left the book unfinished as he joined the revolution in Russia. Theory of revolution is vital, but practice and history offer their own lessons. Mainly, the socialism is the process of proletarian dictatorship, that class warfare continues under socialism, that its a transitional stage capable of reverting back to the old ways and maintaining bourgeois elements within it.