You're saying now, "Well, I'm talking about the platforms of parties that have the word 'socialist' in their name as a historic relic." That's like trying to talk about communism through the lens of the current policies of the Chinese Communist Party. "But, but, they have the word 'communist' in their name so when we talk about communists we should keep them in mind, not the guys who murdered everyone!" Seriously, listen to yourself. You used to have some logical backing for your points.

I actually spent 5 minutes looking up the most popular left-leaning European parties using the word "socialist" in their name.

SPD:

The SPD was established as a Marxist party in 1875. However, the SPD underwent a major shift in policies reflected in the differences between the Heidelberg Program of 1925, which "called for the transformation of the capitalist system of private ownership of the means of production to social ownership", and the Godesberg Program of 1959, which aimed to broaden its voter base and move its political position toward the centre. After World War II, under the leadership of Kurt Schumacher, the SPD re-established itself as a socialist party, representing the interests of the working class and the trade unions. With the Godesberg Program of 1959, however, the party evolved from a socialist working-class party to a modern social-democratic party working within capitalism.

Verdict: They're not socialist anymore, but social democrats

Die Linke:

The Left aims for democratic socialism in order to overcome capitalism. As a platform for left politics in the wake of globalization, The Left includes many different factions, ranging from communists to social democrats. In March 2007, during the joint party convention of Left Party and WASG, a document outlining political principles was agreed on. The official program of the party was decided upon by an overwhelming majority at the party conference in October 2011 in Erfurt, Thuringia.

Verdict: Even though these guys were actual committed communists, now they're a wide spectrum from socialist to social democrat, and their platform calls for heavy taxation, not confiscation, of businesses.

PS (France):

Three major tendencies or factions emerged within the PS by the end of the Seventies. One was represented by the Mitterrandists who wanted reform but not a complete break with capitalism. A second faction was led by Michel Rocard and his supporters, who sought social democracy with a strong measure of autogestion, while a third faction formed around Jean-Pierre Chevènement and the CERES group which stood for revolutionary socialism.

Verdict: We know that the first two groups came to dominate, so they're not socialists but rather, social democrats.

PCF:

One consistency in the PCF's ideology has been its staunch opposition to capitalism, which must be "overcome" because, according to the PCF, the capitalist system is "exhausted" and "on the verge of collapse". The PCF has interpreted the current course of globalization as a confirmation of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels's view on the future evolution of capitalism. The party feels that the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the Great Recession have further justified its calls to overcome capitalism. However, the PCF has remained somewhat vague on how capitalism will be 'overcome' and what will replace it, placing heavy emphasis on utopic models or values.

Verdict: The French Communist Party remains dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Surprise!

Labour:

It only gained a "socialist" commitment with the original party constitution of 1918. That "socialist" element, the original Clause IV, was seen by its strongest advocates as a straightforward commitment to the "common ownership", or nationalisation, of the "means of production, distribution and exchange". Although about a third of British industry was taken into public ownership after the Second World War, and remained so until the 1980s, the right of the party were questioning the validity of expanding on this objective by the late 1950s.

Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992. The new version of Clause IV, though affirming a commitment to democratic socialism, no longer definitely commits the party to public ownership of industry: in its place it advocates "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition" along with "high quality public services ... either owned by the public or accountable to them."

Verdict: Again, social democracy.

We have a wide range of specific and clear terms that we can use. We can call a party "communist" if it is striving not just for socialism, but ultimately for a pure communist society. We can call it "socialist" when it wants to have the control of the means of production in the hands of the state. If that party puts a premium on representative democracy, we can call it "democratic socialist". If it favors a policy of taxing industry and individuals at high rates to support social programs, we call it "social democratic". If it supports only a safety net, we tend to call it "market democratic". This is clear and easily understood by anyone who has a sufficiently moderate grasp of politics.

Socialism is not and has never been determined by having socialized medicine. That is a platform of social democrats that socialists share, but socialists go a hell of a lot farther.