>>913
That isn't the definition of socialism. Socialism would define the type of social contract, taking into account certain common goals, such as the pursuit of a free, equal society. So, take Rousseau's social contract. He talks about a general will, meaning, there are certain things everyone wants, and if they don't, they just don't know it yet and need a leader to slap some sense into them. Whilst the stuff about the leader isn't socialist, the idea of a general will has some resonance in socialist ideology. For example, socialists believe people are equal, and that under fair, equitable circumstances, everyone can succeed at something. That we would like a society in which everyone is free to exercise their full potential is surely something everyone believes in (well, you'd hope). Er it's hard to explain but there is something beyond the material that links all humans together and it can be the basis for the creation of a cooperative, progressive, productive society and this is like the general will. Sort of. No one is destined to be a failure, etc. So yeah I think you're misunderstanding socialism, because there is more to it than just the role of the state, it's the motivations behind the use of the state. So, a socialist might criticise Bush for using the state as an instrument to further the aims of what you called 'crony capitalism'. Not because he is intervening in the economy, disrupting its natural flow (a lot of mystic garbage in right-libertarian thought, imo), but because he is doing it for the benefit of an elite group, like what has been called the bourgeoisie. Republicans and democrats alike meddle with the economy, but never for the interests of the working man. A social democrat might intervene in it to even out the natural consequences of private accumulation of wealth. A socialist would intervene to drastically alter it in favour of the working class. An American democrat or republican will meddle in it to further benefit their important constituency, the uber-elite.