So it could be called socialist if you look at certain aspects of the economical foundation.
They DO have no ownership of private companies, which is socialist thinking, but they also dont have private ownership for the people, which is not.
But North Korea is special. They call themselves socialist, but in reality they invented their own ideology called Songun. It means "military first".
The "spirit of the law" in socialism is also for the country to work for the people. But you can argue with Songun, every single thing is done for military power. Not power to the people - nor for the people.
So yeah, North Korea calls themselves socialist (because they like to be friends with China), but they act like a authoritarin military dictatorship - or Songun.
The premise is to bring down costs, and not be free. This is a reality where we can share media we buy, because we own them again.
So you can kind of imagine the world 20-30 years back with VHS and DVDs. Just in the digital world.
Fewer people would buy the content, and less shareholders will be rich. Actors will also not go for multi million dollar salaries. But actors would still exist.
You can argue that this will bring down the number of movies, but most likely there will just be alot of small studios making movies instead of Netflix and Disney controlling the market from start to end.
There will be a much larger varaity in movies, and not that many reboots of past succes from the VHS/DVD age.
That's like saying "which of the orange and the apple is not a fruit."
But to try to answer what I think you are asking, North Korea is a communist dicatorship controlled by one family. Kind of how Kings worked in the old days.
And China is an authoritarian one-party state.
North Korea does not have a privatized sector. China does. North Korea is not socialist by definition, and China is.
Communism without a dictatorship is yet to be seen at large scale. That would be interesting to compare.
And you also dont have to go ALL IN on communism. You can absoluty choose sectors, that will never be private, and have private sectors that will be regulated by giving the workers more power and owners much less.
The purpose is to boost European companies. Right now they pay between 1-3% of every single transaction.
Next, banks will also get hit. If a digital Euro exists, bank transactions will go down, meaning less transaction fees for both consumers and companies.
Then there's convinience. People will be free to transfer money across the continent, and also to friends and family without any costs (some countries have that, some dont).
VISA and MasterCard is just a very unneccesarry middle man in 2025.
Who takes the bill then? Well, the EU does, because they work for the people, and the money gained is much larger than money spent. Net positive matematics.
It's not that dumb. There's a market for this, if you want it or not.
And if you're going to use crypto, it's better they use a currency that's not tied to the currency of an unstable country.
Also, the EU is looking to make a digital Euro anyway, which will not be a crypto coin as you know it, but a way to take power away from VISA and Mastercard, which will save European countries for billions each year.
I think there's a middle ground. It's not all or nothing.
We can have million dollar studios without having a billion dollar studio.