So I suffered through watching the other "debaters"
Katy Clark and
Jeremy Corbin and confirmed they said exactly what you expected them to say:
They ignored the oxford English dictionary definition and every single point made against them and instead chose to talk about Democratic Socialism with an emphasis on stories of poverty and suffering and how they are superior moral people (radiscals) for daring to think there is a "better way" and for "dreaming" of a "egalitarian" society. Katy Clark of course took credit for Pensions, schools, health care and so forth, and basically said nothing of import. When it was pointed out that the Rich still have better health care in Britain, Corbin scoffs at that absurd notion and of course suggests its because they aren't egalitarian enough yet. Then Corbin goes full envrio-nazi ( Did you even read Marx on the environment? Yes. He said it should be cynically used as a wedge issue to push his policies) and suggests centralized democratic control is required to protect our Earth. Of course, when Russia is brought up as an example of such control, its absurd to say it has anything to do with him or his polices. Of course, its because Stalin and Russia didn't follow Marx's ideas closely enough. You know, it didn't work in Russia because the wrong people are in charge. No acknowledgement that the "wrong people" always (Always!) seem to end up in charge of these systems or that the opposing side explained why.
Corbin even goes so far as to throw out - verbatim - "from each according to his liabilities, to each according to his needs" and how he ( superior as he is ) would choose a society arranged on that principle. Left out of course is how he is perfectly willing to use force to make others - especially the people with abilities he wishes to enslave for his "dream of the common good" - will be fined, imprisoned or killed for not complying.
I wish someone would have asked him about his support of Mob rule and slavery of the minority. But of course they don't address the coercion. So yeah, its the usual stuff. I have a better dream than yours, and therefore I am justified in committing any sort of atrocity in my pursuit of a better world.
However, I would still argue that Democratic Socialism still falls within the Oxford English Dictionary definition. A country that takes 50% or more of all private endeavor may not control that endeavor, but it is saying it owns 50% of anything and everything done, for any reason. You cannot say you have private ownership of a company when stock holders own 51% or more of the stock.
Sweden collects close to 50% of the National GDP in tax revenue with all security programs, VAT and other taxes. Think about that. That means the gover is either "saving " that money or spending it.
This site suggests that the Swedish govt is responsible for 25% of its GDP a year.. So at Best, 25% of the GDP is left in private hands. IS that really a "private economy" or does 51% claim of every person and every service in the economy constitute ownership of that resource?
Socialism( in any form) laws claim to State ownership of some portion of every person's labor, to be spend and used as the State see fit, with no restrictions or limits protecting the individual, inalienable rights of the individual. That claim is the same made by slavers in days past, who also provided each of their slaves with food, health care housing, and a job. Many slaves were allowed to raise their own chickens and to retain some personal belongings, with the implicit assumption those could be denied at the owners whim. Just because the State is the owner, is any different principle being applied? They will magnanimously will let you keep some of your own labor, we will let you have some belongings-- but you have no right to them. You only have the rights to what we say you have rights to - like that free food, housing, healthcare etc that keep you ready to make us the profits we demand.
Once can only concluse that the State in Sweden owns at least 51%
It is sustainable in Sweden only because of the homogeneity of the people and their personal ethics- and I suspect they will be corrupted over time as well, because they are humans and human nature will eventually win.