Socialism, like capitalism, is an economic structure or theory. Democracy, on the other hand, is a human or social arrangement, a way of life, or an attitude. Its leading ideals are liberty, equality, and fraternity. Its methods include joint striving for individual and social fulfillment.
Capitalism or socialism, whatever their respective merits as economic theories, can be governed by democratic or authoritarian principles.
Even corporations, whose purpose is profit for shareholders or owners, can benefit from democratic methods where individual opinions of workers are respected and solicited by management.
Many corporations, however, tend to be authoritarian or "hierarchical" in structure. Management commands, and workers obey. Management owns the assets, so management is always right.
On the other hand, socialist economics can be subservient to principles of freedom, equality, and cooperation which characterize democracy. People can willingly or freely embrace socialist methods of using wealth.
Or socialist economics can be imposed by authoritarian "masters" on the masses "for their own good." In that case, principles of democracy are violated for the sake of greater efficiency and order with regard to distribution of wealth.
In theory, socialism should promote democracy; and capitalism tends to favor authoritarian systems of command and obey.
In fact, genuine instances of democracy can be found coexisting with a variety of economic or mixed economic frameworks; and authoritarianism can appear in a variety of economic or mixed economic frameworks.
The problem is one of people and their attitudes -- whether they prefer to boss others around and be bossed by others or whether they prefer to work side by side with others as equals who think and decide for themselves.
The key is not our economic structures or social arrangements. It is how we arrive at them -- by democratic choice or by authoritarian imposition.
= new reply since forum marked as read