Why are they Socialist?

They are very left wing and have very active socialist parties (real ones not socdems) and much popular support for historic socialists. So to keep it brief, I just asked it that way.

Here we have the typical leftard.

PSOE only thinks of one thing, raise taxes and increase the power of the state, things that have always been socialist.

lel

>Latin Americans flee from their countries for socialism, but they are so idiotic that they are still voting here the same ruinous things
kek

During Franco they were so rightwing, they came out on the left

The picture is fake btw

littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44676_Busted!_National_Review_Crops_and_Dirties_Photo_From_Austin_Walmart_Claims_It_Shows_Venezuela

Southroons in spain only care about welfare and the political parties only care about becoming more rich and powerful.

Boomer tier post

>socialism is when the state is doing stuff

>such a thing as a non equal socialist party ruling others is possible

"they" are actually 9 different countries forced to be together by 1 evil monarchy

Attached: Separatismos_na_Espanha.svg.png (733x600, 82K)

Dumb ass brainlet southroon nafri 70iq

Spain was together during republics.

>bleurg blplpffrtt aaaaafgh

Attached: 1508362179980.png (534x363, 91K)

Brown hands typed this post

Attached: Screenshot_2018-07-24-19-32-04.png (720x1280, 842K)

but there's an element of truth. the CIA fucked latin america with a long hard dildo because it was so welcoming to the USSR, so we had to sink to the USSR's methods (installing dictators) just to avoid giving them a base from which to invade us

it's funny to see latin americans complain about video game prices and such, when your fucking retarded governments (especially Brazil) put up giant electronics tariffs. what did you expect? have a protectionist economy, want cheap and free shit? hah

>socialist
>dominating form of property is private exept for maybe Catalonia and Basque Country
No, it's not.
It's called "welfare state".

>socialist refers to the equal distribution of economical powers
>ussr had political parties of a few dominaring and ruling the rest

Attached: 1533604070893.png (733x406, 128K)

>state property is socialism!
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Calm your sugar tits buddy. I just mocked the argumnt of the stupid leaf. Nowhere did i complain about anything else.

You can't have a "socialist party" or a "socialist government" that implies unequal power structure for tge benefit of a few over others by structure.

Attached: 1533511761660.jpg (770x760, 70K)

Whatever nomenclature you use, political parties can never become an equal union of population of equal value to every individual.

Statw property refera to the property of a few unequal domineering party members, you realize marxist thought and books arent a holy truth?

Attached: 1533605484921.png (157x130, 41K)

>so we had to sink to the USSR's methods
Your kiked country financed bolsheviks. You didn't sink, you were already at the bottom.

What the fuck are you talking about.

And I'm not advocating for state property or partocracy. I promote cooperative ownership, as in Basque Country.
I realize that you can't write for shit.

Socialist means no private property, you fucking moron.

>Your kiked country financed bolsheviks
Sutton has been debunked.

Government implies the unequal rule of power of a few patricians over proletariat, a true equal country has no parties but equal distribution of economical capital and political power is equal towards all individuals who all have equal time for their beliefs to the public without a few dominating the scene.

Attached: 1533414226846.png (306x306, 73K)

>They are very left wing and have very active socialist parties (real ones not socdems) and much popular support for historic socialists. So to keep it brief, I just asked it that way.

Each equal member votes for their will in a true democracy.

That would be as retarded as to say that America are 50 different states forced to be together. Stfu Ameritard with your evil policies to weaken foreign countries.

>have very active socialist parties
>(real ones not socdems)
This part bugs me a little.

Were the bolsheviks a socialist party?

Yes, but there are so many socialists today that the word "socialist" has lost it's value. There are marxist socialist, non-marxist socialists, welfare-statists, their name is Legion

How were the bolsheviks socialist and not simply an oligarchy with the monopolization of political and economical power?

Attached: 8nRqoXW.png (800x729, 48K)

>have private property
>workers do not own economical production
>workers have no political or economical power
>economical and political power concentrated in a few
I can see why stalin didnt bother propaganda against western capitalist and referred to himself as a businessman not a propagandist.

Attached: mp,550x550,gloss,ffffff,t.3u7.jpg (413x550, 17K)

You're mixing together different things.
Socialism is the stage of communist socio-economical formation. The transformation between different formations requires the evolution of productive forces and relations of production.
Socialist is the party that does significant steps to achieve this stage
Was Soviet Union a socialist country? No. The property on the means of production was belonging to the state, so the state was a collective capitalist.
Can you call it an oligarchy? Probably. Oligarchy is a form of rule, while capitalism and socialism are economical formations.
>have private property
There's a difference between property and property. Property on the means of production in the socialist formation should be communal, not state or private. The other kinds of property (like personal things, clothes, all that stuff) are called "personal property" and this kind of property should remain.

Don't bother, USSR was an oligarchial exploitative dictatorship.

Bolshevism is oligarchy.

Attached: oligarchy-thinking.jpg (640x360, 19K)

Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, USSR, all exploitative patrician oligarchies.

Attached: 1533656483413.jpg (125x125, 4K)

Curse of the South

>USSR was an oligarchial exploitative dictatorship.
It was
>Bolshevism is oligarchy.
How do you define bolshevism?
> all exploitative patrician oligarchies.
Because they weren't communist.
Also
>Venezuela
>socialist
Yeah, 70% of private sector is very socialist indeed.

Catalonia needs some freedom.

I'm from Catalonia and what we need is a centralized authoritarian government, not the fucking balkanized states that only benefit our leechers, politicians and foreign countries

>they are still voting
do they really vote?