“The Community” leaders are rarely among the most moral and responsible of the community. Most often, they are the manipulators, the blackmailers, the thugs who diminish any opposition with threats, slander, and murder.
Democracy is the will of the majority.
Socialism is the authority of the leader.
Democracy is anarchy.
Socialism is statist.
Wilson was wrong. The two are diametrically opposed but democracy is typically used as the means to achieve autocracy.
Anarchism is merely a tool to achieve statism, quite often in and of itself. The terror that invariably comes from a state of anarchy is, by design, meant to induce a call for extraordinary means to restore order, which itself invariably includes the nullification of rights that are supposed to be inalienable in a civil society.
So insofar as democracy really is not anarchic (it doesn’t deny the existence of government in and of itself, but dictates what the people want the government to do but only at certain points in history, without regard to constitutional law or absolutes), it is indeed, as Wilson pointed out, the supremacy of the “community”, with the aforementioned corrupt leadership really driving the statist engine. That’s why the Communist Manifesto said that the purpose of “rais(ing) the proletariat to the position of ruling class” was “to win the battle of democracy”, the next step being “to use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie […] by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property and on the means of bourgeois production”, ad nauseam.