It’s true if you regard democracy as Neal does - as a way in which we “express our preferences as society”, as distinct from the individual preferences expressed by markets.
There is, though, another conception of democracy. Democracy is a means of harnessing the dispersed wisdom of individuals, against the folly and arrogance of hierarchical rulers.
On this conception, markets are an expression of democracy. Markets can humiliate the powerful - as we saw in Dave Carroll’s campaign against United Airlines, the collapse of Fred Goodwin’s Stalinist managerialism, and in countless product failures.
I have two reasons to prefer the latter conception - which implies that markets and socialism are compatible:
1. It’s not obvious why collective preferences are in principle so admirable. What’s is the inherent virtue in having things decided by groups? Isn’t there instead much to be said for a large realm of private choice.
2. In practice, collective decision-making is often anti-egalitarian. It can give excessive weight to the rich and powerful or those with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. Collective provision of state education, for example, frequently favours wealthier families.
Of course, Neal is right to say that the democracy of the market-place gives more votes to the rich than poor. But this isn’t a market failure. It is instead a state failure - the inability of the state to impose adequately redistributive taxes. And this itself is evidence that our "preferences as a society" - as filtered through existing pseudo-democratic institutions - militate against equality.
I suspect that any adequately socialist society would be one in which markets were used more intensively than they are now - not just because markets are a reasonably efficient way of allocating resources, but because they can embody egalitarian values.