And what does this have to do with Winston Churchill? I already commented multiple times why the Soviet Union ended as it was and it wasn't representative of socialism, insofar as the economic system utilized. I told you about this in a PM, ffs, and gave you links to that. How come you are still so ignorant?
No, they are reformist democratic socialists. This means that they seek a gradual approach to socialism instead of a revolution, but socialism is always the main goal of democratic socialism, both revolutionary and reformist. The problem of reformist democratic socialism is that, while the transition stage takes place, it needs a way to safeguard the status quo of the "Reformist Party", leading to state centralization. Essentially what happened in Venezuela after Chavez died. Revolution is far safer in this aspect, but the problem with the USSR and like-minded countries was the eventual corruption of the Vanguard Party and the rise of Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism (which was created by Stalin).
I always LOL at this. It's a very incoherent "branch" of socialism (if it can even be called that way), and social democratic parties are counted on it even though they did never seek to establish socialism. Soc dems in this category always seek to establish a welfare state in very volatile Latin American economies, and some of them, the Kirchner family in particular, are extremely corrupt.
National socialism is as socialist as the Republican Party is critical of religion. That is, none. The mere assumption that it is gives light on how much you know about the matter. Fascism does share some theorical background with Marxism, courtesy of Mussolini, but Fascism is a merger between state and corporate power, not the institution of economic democracy.