That would make socialism conservative in Sweden. It doesn't work like that. Yeah, what is considered "liberal" or "conservative" varies from country to country, but the traditional/classic definition does not.
One: You said traditional, not classical. Traditional by definition varies depending on the traditions - you can't just remove the context and expect is to have any meaning. Classical is all about preserving the power of the aristocracy and monarchy, sure, I'll give you that, because classical, in modern parlance, is just a synonym for "European". This makes it completely irrelevant to any discussion of the American conservatism which comes from a very different tradition. So if when you say "traditional" conservatism, what you mean is "classical european conservatism", which is very different from traditional chinese conservatism or traditional american conservatism, you might want to just use that name instead when dealing with people from a different tradition. Basically: You're Eurocentrism is showing. Sorry, but you're continent isn't the center of the world, and you don't get exclusive rights on history or tradition.
Two: Even by that definition, it's stupid, because "Traditional" in a conservative european context still represents two distinct movements - the French and British "classical conservatism" are quite different.
Three: Its perfectly possible for conservatism to advocate socialism. Why wouldn't you think that was possible? Socialism has little to do with the liberalism/conservatism divide. In fact, by your claim as the previous quote being the traditional liberal definition, well.. socialism certainly isn't liberal!