One problem here is that so many confuse 'socialism' with intervention by the capitalist state. Socialism is about common control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and for a long time this was mixed up with naïve notions about common control of that state, which is actually, of course, controlled by big business, and this is what has caused the mental problem. More and more, since violent party-led revolution is so hugely chancy, we socialists are moving towards direct workers control of business, which can happen even within capitalism, as we see in firms like John Lewis.
I know that's the official definition of socialism, I think there's been a radical shift in the common usage of the word. I think socialism today is an ideal, rather than the method by which this ideal is reached. Like Deng Xio Ping said, "it doesn't matter if the cat is white or black. What matters is that it catches mice".
So while you're correct in the academic sense, I think socialism today really does mean various government interventions.
I've personally worked in various government companies created by two socialist governments. My conclusion is that the state should stay the fuck away from running companies. It also makes sense. When government runs companies the incentives are all off. The end customer is always the least important person for a socialist company. The real "customer" is some government functionary. So the entire company is geared toward making that one person happy. The inevitable result is a dysfunctional company where hardly anybody does what they're supposed to. This is true for each of the companies I've ended up in. So I think it's a terrible idea that the government owns the "means of production".
Yes, I too am a socialist. I follow the maxim "a society should be judged on how it treats it's weakest members". As far as I'm concerned that leads to socialism. But not a problem free utopia. That just leads to a whole other set of head-aches. While worth it, a pain.
