offered, even though NJ presented the issue as a rather complex thing that can't possibly said in 3 minutes. Something simpler might be; the main issue to be presented in a discussion of Marxism and democracy is the issue of dollars and votes.
Or to try and simplify it further:
every society needs Material things, food, clothing, housing, and society is geared around those material things, that everyone needs. Ownership and control of these material things gives power to teh owner, social power.
Now, under Liberal Democracy (as distinct from other forms, notably Direct Democracy) the state is seperated from the control of these things, the state has no control over food production, clothing production, whatever, it is limited to a certain social field, basically with the after effects of the production- thus the important decisions are taken elsewhere, with the owners of wealth.
This means that Democracy is limited to a small field of society- securing property, military, prisons, managing poverty, etc.- with the really important questions utterly beyond its control. Hence Early Marxists called the Current system 'Formal Demoarcy' to which tehy Contrasted 'Social Democracy'- real equality and control over social life.
Once, when asked how many people, out of a Germany of 60 million, would be in the Government, Marx replied '60 million'. That can only be done democratically.