I can see that some people are having a difficult time understanding this, so let’s spell this out as clearly as I can:
Since we socialists can’t seem to agree on even the colour of shit, there are about as many different interpretations of socialism as there are socialists. But the one thing that we have in common (along with some anarchists such as Noam Chomsky) is that we believe that the state can (and should) be used for a time to curtail the power of capitalists, to remove them from their position of ridiculous power and to redress the gross imbalance in wealth that they have accumulated for themselves while 18 million people (3 times 9/11) die globally every year due to poverty.
Fascists on the other hand believe in using the power of the state to preserve and enhance the power of capitalists (see, for instance, the collusion between Nazi Germany and the infamous Krupp family or Mussolini’s Corporatist régime) at the expense of workers.
I know, I know, it’s hard. They both deal with the state AND capitalists! It’s so confusing. But here’s an easy mnemonic device to help remember the difference between the two for next time.
Saying that Bush’s fascist move this week is actually the same thing as “socialism” just because it involves the state and capitalists is a bit like saying that cancer-causing cigarettes are the same thing as chemotherapy because they both involve cancer and its spread.
~
See Also:
Paulitics 
Bravo!
Equating any involvement of the state with socialism is a most grotesque example of hypocrisy. Capitalism was built through the state, through the Enclosure Acts, the British Navy protected slave trade, the development of empire, the military and police suppression of the workers, gifts of land, cheap loans, corporate law, banking regulations, patent law and etc. Capitalism is essentially STATE capitalism and would not last a week without its bully protector. (Or as I sometimes put it, capitalism is the state socialism of the rich.)
An excellent point and well made.
We discussed this topic at my last Socialist Alternative meeting. I heard an interviewee on an otherwise apolitical radio station make the same claim; yet again, another gross misunderstanding of Marxist economic theory and so on.
Paul. This is a bit off-topic, but you might like the graphic here
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
Sometimes socialism is meant as a catch all. You can add another ‘wingnut capitalist’ to that list of people calling this socialism-Ralph Nader.
That’s a great point Martin, I also heard about Ralph Nader using that term. I was so disappointed to hear him of all people say that! I thought he would have some more sense than that.
The fact is that particularly in the states ‘socialism’ means ‘bad’. I suspect Nader knows political theory so like many others is simply trying to paint the bailout as ‘bad’.