I disagree that socialism is democratic by its very definition. The definition usually includes ownership and operation of the means of production by the 'community' or by the 'state.' But both the community and state have leaders (except in extremely small communities like some instances of Occupy Wall Street where members engaged in group voting on everything - direct democracy), and those leaders are selected somehow.
Even if the representatives resulting from the selection process (which, in pure socialism, is usually a non-democratic process conducted by political elites) were to truly represent the entire population, there may be conflict and a variety of opinions on how to proceed on any given issue. Those who win these conflicts might be called leaders, and they are not engaging in direct democracy.
Sorry, I think you're wrong. Socialism, as a means to obtain equality, must be intrinsically democratic. All socialist parties I know about are democratic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism
As I said, "socialism" is well defined. If some people like to attribute this "adjective" to their policies/country/whatever that's up to them, not to real socialism meaning.
Even if the representatives resulting from the selection process (which, in pure socialism, is usually a non-democratic process conducted by political elites) were to truly represent the entire population, there may be conflict and a variety of opinions on how to proceed on any given issue. Those who win these conflicts might be called leaders, and they are not engaging in direct democracy.
Direct democracy is one exception to this.