Regional development, common agricultural policy, European social fund... There are many things that could be considered a bit socialist. All the directives regulating business, competition regulation too... EU is not really classical liberal or nationalist.

and considering the examples you cite, that's obviously a good thing, despite the fact that for most americans 'socialism' aims to be a scarecrow word.

So good that it led to non existent growth except in third world immigration.

In what way is regional development or common policy or regulating business "socialist" in any way?

Collective control over the means of production, and redistribution of wealth.

Oh, if your definition of "collective control over the means of production" is as broad as "there exists a governing body which creates and enforces policies which regulate the private sector", then I guess literally every single modern nation state style society is "socialist" in your eyes. I must say that's not the most useful definition, and certainly not what anyone who's a proponent of anything they call "socialism" means by "socialism".

Like "left/right", it's always a question of degree. There is no pure version of any system. I was responding to a comment that seems to think the EU policies have not a trace of socialism in them, which is incorrect.

Edit: and the extent of EU regulations is quite enormous.

No, you are incorrect. There is nothing socialist about the EU. Production, distribution and exchange are not owned by the people. Elected bodies owning them is not socialist.

Not even a little? It's all-or-nothing?

Tell me more how all the money transfers are neoliberal? How the “creating of european idea” is neoliberal? How “we must have minimal taxes in europe” is neoliberal. Industrial subsidies for car and aeroplane companies. Compulsary social and retirement policies. In EU socialism is the norm, everything outside is branded almost extreme right. And right is a bad word in EU. If you take right and cut out russian support, keep taxes and less money distribution, promote personal tesponsibility you are still extreme right.

> If you take right and cut out russian support, keep taxes and less money distribution, promote personal tesponsibility you are still extreme right.

That describes to a T the French party "Les Republicains", and nobody calls them far right. So no, you need the extremist "migrants bad" with zero nuance, heavy doses of populism with no foundation, promises of more money distribution (in France, the Front National is promising raising the minimum wage, bringing back the wealth tax, and other such populist "give money to the real people" things), and yes, lots of Russian support and money and dicksucking, and you get a classic European far-right party.

> In EU socialism is the norm

What is your definition of socialism? Considering the EU hasn't nationalised/EU-lised anything to control the means of production, I can guarantee you it's wrong.

The EU is neoliberal in many aspects, like the railway packages, strict rules on country subsidies into many sectors (countries can no longer just bail out their national industries when they fail). But it isn't only neoliberal. Consumer protections with warranties, GDPR, Digital Markets and Services Acts, etc. aren't strictly neoliberal.

I don't know why anyone would think something as complex as the EU can be described with a political label. Hell, most parties can barely be described with a single label, let alone a multi-government entity with many institutions and responsible for some of the greatest progress and unity the continent has ever seen.

> in France, the Front National is promising raising the minimum wage, bringing back the wealth tax, and other such populist "give money to the real people" things

These are not populist things…

If there's no plan on how to finance such things in one of the countries with the highest public spending as % of GDP, relatively high budget deficits, a high debt to GDP ratio, slipping credit rating, monstrous pension obligations and impending demographic slowdown... Yes they are. Empty bullshit being said because it's popular and easy to be said. No substance, no real plan, no real solutions.

Why is "migrants bad" with zero nuance extremist?

Because it's little more than xenophobia, which has always been extremist.

You don't want people with radically different value systems being allowed to migrate without making efforts to integrate themselves? Sure, say so. That's a reasonable position that can be debated. Maybe you'd be OK with asylum seekers fleeing for their lives, maybe not, to be discussed.

You don't want anyone different to come to the country? That's xenophobia, and considering the demographic challenges facing the EU, stupid. And of course the funny thing is that most of the people espousing those extremist views and voting for the "migrants bad" parties are living in the countryside where there are practically no migratns and everyone knows everyone else. Cities, where those migrants (be they Afghanis or Ukrainians who ran for their lives, Sudanese looking for a better life) are actually concentrated, are markedly pro-much more open to migrants parties.

Welcoming all migrants can work in countries with no social net like US in their biggest boom. Come and work. EU countries are stretched and more and more people with low to no skills are gonna be really hard on the budgets. They cant even guarantee to pay people born there nice retirement in 30 years.

Are you under the impression that anyone can just come into an EU country and start receiving aid?

There are programs to help asylum seekers (people literally running for their lives) settle in, but there are lots of criteria to fill to be able to claim that, and it takes weeks to years of processing to validate your claims you're indeed running for your life and there's an actual risk for your life.

I understand that. But the migrants also need housing and food while they wait. I am absolutely for some kind of immigration. But not for "everybody that comes here will stay". And absolutely for trying to engage people into european society. Fundamental islam is a real thing. Second generation of immigrants is getting radicalizes and european union needs to do something with it. And if somebody accuses me on hating islam, i dont like all religions the same.

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with socialism.

Depends on the definition of socialism. For me the flow through retirement is socialist. The healthcare that forces people to pay money to non functioning system based on their income is socialist.

> The healthcare that forces people to pay money to non functioning system based on their income is socialist.

Non functioning? All EU countries with public healthcare score better than the US in the healthcare rankings (and life expectancy), by a good measure. And some of them are the best in the world. This [1] is just one source, you can find multiple ones with the same conclusion.

[1] https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

Norway has huge oil reservers, Swiss healthcare is basically private. We could go deeper. NHS in UK is in the shambles for example.

Switzerland has universal health care, regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland#:~:t...).

Socialism has an actual definition though, so you don't need to make your own one up.

Europe is constantly pushing for privatization of public sectors such as rail, electricty... Subsidies would be socialist if the people owned the companies that received them, which is absolutely not the case. All the money transfers and other policies you talk about are only carried out in the sole goal of evening out a playing field for the european private sector to compete in.

You are right in that it is not exactly neoliberal, I believe the correct term is "ordoliberal".