Well, the answer is both yes and no.
The primary aim of Socialism is to dramatically restructure a country's economic system whereby the poor, the downtrodden and the economically disenfranchised, have greater access to capital through a massively high taxation policy on a country's wealthiest class. In doing so, The Government, becomes The Primary Enterpriser and Ultimate Monopoly, thereby CRUSHING any form of external competition.
However, the "redistribution of wealth", is somewhat democratic, whereby the economic stratification between classes is reduced and the near equal distribution of wealth is enacted through high taxation policies. The democratic virtue of Equality-(or near Equality), is the main aim of Socialism, even if it means a greater consolidation and Centralization of State Power. But, it is this concern regarding the greater consolidation and Centralization of State Power that makes Socialism, only partially democratic and NOT Universally democratic.
If the State has unlimited or near unlimited economic Power, then it has the capacity to prevent or minimize competition. This is typically referred to as a "Monopoly", which by its very name, signifies an anti-democratic and even perhaps a more totalitarian/absolutist sounding meaning.
For example, a Pan-Socialistic economy-(which is NOT to be confused with hybrid Socialistic economies, such as the Scandinavian countries), does NOT allow for the Right to Enterprise or to Corporatize. Why would it? Again, if the Government is the Sole Enterprising Force within a particular country, then ALL of its Industries and the ENTIRETY of its economy, is Governmentally regulated. Therefore, there are NO businesses-(this would include Fortune 500 Companies, small businesses and yes, even lemonade stands!). If a person or group of persons has a knack for enterprising or generating Capital, then he or she would be viewed as an oddity, an outsider, an outcast and an untrustworthy member of that particular Pan-Socialistic country.
The same is true for the Right to Invest. In a Pan-Socialistic country, there is NO Stock Market, no corporations or businesses to invest in, no trading opportunities, no Commodities market, no opportunities to buy and sell real estate-(both residential and commercial), no Hedge Funds, No Brokerage Houses, No Investment Banks, no Venture Capital Firms and yes, NO Las Vegas and NO Atlantic City. All of these individual and institutional Investors, would NOT exist in a Pan-Socialistic country and like the above Enterprising/Corporatizing example, they too, would be viewed as outcasts or oddities within a Pan-Socialistic country.
Pan-Socialism-(again, not to be confused with Scandinavian style Socialism), does not view Capital as a means for great potential and wealth building; it views Capital, as a means for fulfilling near economic equality and achieving social justice.....a type or righting of the wrongs and a redressing of economic grievances-(so to speak). Pan-Socialistic economies emphasize the democratic values of Equality and Communalism through The Statewide readjustment of Capital, whereas Capitalistic economies emphasize the democratic values of individuality, liberty and personal achievements through the availability, enterprising, corporatizing and investing of Capital.
In a way, there are two types of Socialism; the hybrid and the Universal.
The Hybrid style of Socialism, emphasizes equality and communalism for many of its citizens, though does allow for a smaller number of its citizens the right to enterprise, corporatize and invest. In doing so, this Capitalistic class within a hybrid Socialistic country, essentially subsidizes a sizable portion of the State's revenue which compensates for many of the Social, Communalistic programs that it wishes to implement as a way of assisting the economically disenfranchised.
The Universal style of Socialism-(or Pan-Socialism), restricts any opportunities for its individual citizens to generate capital and wealth. In doing so, its State revenues tend to lag behind the more advanced capitalistic countries in terms of overall productivity/GDP, commerce/trade, international investment, currency valuation, stabilization of interest rates and overall cost of living, the insuring of its banking system and national worth.
So while Socialism attempts to democratize its economies, it is also simultaneously restricting some of its individual citizens from having the freedom to utilize, as well as hone, their economic and financial talents. These (often draconian and draconian-like) restrictions, when IMPOSED on the citizenry, are NOT exactly, the best examples of democratic policymaking.....(at least from the Individualistic, Pro-Liberty perspective).