Many people believe that socialism – some form of political and economic democracy – would be a good thing, if only it could work. But they do not believe the socialist ideals are compatible with economic efficiency. Others believe that socialism might well work, if only we could get there. But they do not believe there is a feasible path from capitalism to socialism. This chapter is addressed mainly to the second group of objectors, but to some extent also to the first. It is only marginally addressed to those who think socialism would be a bad thing if we got there and it worked.

In my view socialism must not only be democratic: it must be reached in a democratic way. The opposite view was stated by Alfred Sauvy in 1949: “Just as capital goods take precedence over today's welfare in order to ensure tomorrow's, so truth must be shelved during the unhappy period in order to let the full truth burst forth tomorrow … In this light, Communism represents an enormous effort to achieve truth in the long term and freedom on tick (liberté à crédit).” False analogies and wishful thinking apart, what are the flaws of this argument? On what premises could it be refuted?

The conception I am arguing against can be decomposed into two statements: (1) One may rationally count on being able to achieve full democracy by the temporary abolition of democracy; (2) This path is not only rationally grounded, but also morally defensible.