It certainly wouldn't be out of place given the other convoluted things that you and your free-trade cohorts have said.
If you take your definition, I'd say free trade agreements were more "socialistic" than tariffs as FTAs are largely directing the kind and nature of production through controlling supply and suppliers. But then, that would be convoluted because that isn't what socialism or socialistic means.
Again... socialism is where the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Neither is true with respect to our current "managed trade" practices.
How would you describe Sweden, out of curiousity? Socialistic, or not?
Would you agree that tariffs are one method that the government uses to achieve what it calls an equitable social outcome (as argued by some proponents of protectionism)? How is that not socialistic?