I disagree with your assessment of socialism. Socialism doesn't have to limit economic freedom, anymore than the limits we have now. To pretend that limits don't exist now under our current system and do with socialism, is misleading at best. When socialists are being threatened by the American capitalist empire, they hunker down and centralize power, becoming more authoritarian. That occurred here in the USA, during the civil war, and also the 1st and 2nd World Wars. The US became much more authoritarian, forcing Japanese Americans into concentration camps in the 1940s. There were government mandates with respect to rationing and price controls, among other intrusive policies, like the draft.
Socialism in many ways can be much more democratic than what we have now in America under capitalism or perhaps I should say, plutocratic oligarchy.
Now as far as what you said about state control of the major centers of economic power, that is true. I'm not going to contest that. In socialism, we believe there are certain sectors of the economy that should be publicly owned by the people or the working class, and managed by their government. The profits of those industries should be deposited in the public treasury and reinvested into the company to create more jobs and expand the operation or allocated to healthcare, education, and national infrastructure in general. However, I disagree on your claim that healthcare, education, and other services can't have a private sector.
It should be noted that socialism doesn't necessarily prohibit private healthcare and education. You can have a type of Medicare coverage with the state, and the healthcare is provided by private enterprises, or we can have a government run healthcare system like exists in the UK, or here in the United States with our VA, and also allow a private healthcare sector to exist alongside the public sector.
Moreover, although I'm not the type of socialist who interprets what Marx said regarding state and private sector cooperation in the area of vital goods and services, like energy, banking..etc. to mean that the private sector can exist in those areas of the economy, I do acknowledge that I have comrades who do believe that there can be a type of partnership between the state and those so-called "commanding heights of the economy", industries that are vital to the nation's infrastructure. The military-industrial complex, energy production, and other industries can be privatized up to a certain degree and enter into a partnership with the state. I subscribe to the former position, of complete state control of the commanding heights of the economy, allowing privatization only in the non-vital goods and services sector.
I'm still waiting for the Democrats to become socialists. Where are all of the Dem socialists? I can only count maybe a handful, about four or five socialists in the US federal government. At best, maybe not even that.
The democrats are definitely