The use of the label “democratic socialism” may be interpreted as an attempt to disavow political tyranny but retain economic command and control.
This is hopeless. Here’s Mises, for example:
As soon as the economic freedom which the market economy grants to its members is removed, all political liberties and bills of rights become humbug.
Habeas corpus and trial by jury are a sham if, under the pretext of economic expediency, the authority has full power to relegate every citizen it dislikes to the arctic or to a desert and to assign him “hard labor” for life.
Freedom of the press is a mere blind if the authority controls all printing offices and paper plants. And so are all the other rights of men. (HA, 287)
In short, a person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises.
He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it).
Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. (EoL, 113-4)
Socialism, by abolishing private property rights, immediately and reliably does away with the (metaphorical, according to Rothbard) right to freedom of speech and press.
It is thus totalitarian by its very essence.