Apart from the fact that the EU is not a "state", the claim that it is in any way or shape "socialist" flies in the face of basically all available evidence (including the leadership of most EU countries, the composition of the EU parliament, the laws that are actually passed, ...), so it's hard to read your comment as anything but flamebait.
If I was going for flamebait I'd call it communist and expect an uphill battle to persuade people that's the right adjective.
I'm taken completely off guard that calling the EU socialist would be in any way contentious. What's all the stuff about consumer protection, free healthcare and equality for all characterised as if not socialism? How can the hostility to corporations (e.g. this opening post) be characterised as capitalist?
I suppose I'm going off behaviour as opposed to what they say about themselves. Maybe that's where the terminology has gone awry.
> I'm taken completely off guard that calling the EU socialist would be in any way contentious.
Well, then you should look up words you're using. Nobody considers the EU to be socialist. The word "socialism" is poorly defined, but as a minimum it does away with private ownership of the means of production. No such thing is happening in the EU - private corporations are well and alive.
Every first world country (and many others too) bar the USA has universal healthcare (it's not "free", we have to pay for it), and even the US has consumer protection (sometimes even more so than the EU) and laws that companies must obey. And of course, no place on earth has "equality for all", certainly not the EU, where wealth inequality is quite high.
