How a socialist of all people would defend democracy is beyond me (Not because I think socialists are dictators, but because I thought you considered yourself an anarchist...)
Since we're throwing quotes around:
"Democracy is to socialism as oxygen is to the body." - Lev Trotsky
This is a concept I've repeatedly explained in detail. Consult the thread in my signature.
And no, I've never considered myself an anarchist. I frequently rail against the anarchists, though I don't particularly hate them.
For the record, I do understand why you consider the free market oppressive. I disagree of course, but I understand it. If you don't believe in private property rights (Disbelief in property rights is pretty much the basic point of socialism, isn't it?) I don't really expect you to agree with me that voluntary trade of property is anything but exploitive.
You need to learn what words mean. I didn't say the free market was oppressive, I said that private property was oppressive, and that capitalism is oppressive. Though I don't always support a free market, I generally take the Smithian approach to the issue.
I don't understand, at all, why something that is wrong magically becomes right if the almighty "Majority" sanctions it, however. Where are individual rights?
It becomes right because what does the most good for the most people is the best course of action. Ask Mill why.
If you reject private property rights, should the government arbitrarily protect properrty for specific people because the 51% said so? What if the 51% voted to take all of the land for themselves and leave the 49% with nothing? Obviously such an extreme scenario is absurd, but any just government would tell the 51% to screw themselves.
So where are the individual rights for those 51% of people?
I was thinking about making a thread discussing where you (Not you specificaly, "You" in general) draw the line on democracy, since we obviously all think the 51% should be told to screw themselves if they are sufficiently malicious.
You certainly are familiar with the concept of a bill of rights, since you constantly beat your chest about our second one. The communist position is that bills of rights are awesome, but that the right to property is no longer useful for society. What follows will benefit far more people that private property does, or ever could or did.