I guess actual nationalization -- when it has occurred (and it obviously hasn't in most cases) -- could be considered socialism, but in the present case it's not a socialism in an activist sense of the term.  Rather, it's socialism where socialism is generally agreed to be a necessary tool of stabilization policy.  Technical Socialism rather than Socialists' Socialism.

But even that case is frustratingly rare, and the only guy who seems to have really pushed hard for it is poor, sad ol' Gordon Brown, who's as much a political zombie -- and rightly so, even if the alternative will wind up being far worse -- as Shitigroup is a financial one (probably more so).

The other, um, "model" being used -- giving money to the banks, whether via the central banks or a TARP-like program -- cannot reasonably be considered socialism in any sense of the term.  I'm so old that I can remember when that was called corporatism or fascism.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.