I think most of the comments and arguments here, whilst amusing and sharp, don't really address the subject properly and are 'confused' about terminology and how one defines the type of 'socialism' and 'capitalism' that exist in our kind of society.
This debate is, unfortunately, really complex and detailed and I'm not sure this kind of forum is the right place to have it, because 'slogans' aren't, in my opinion an adquate substitute for rational analysis and putting this into the correct economic, social and historical perspective.
I dunno. Is it worht it? Whilst on the surface, the slogan on the marching banner, 'socialism for the rich', sounds rather good, it doesn't really stand up to too much scrutiny. Something else has been going on over the last ten years, and it certainly wasn't anything to do with 'socialism' if that term is to have any meaniing. What we've seen happening, in relation to the state openly stepping in to bail out the financial sector which was on the edge of collapse, was not socialism. It was the opposite of socialism. Calling what happened 'socialism' only has meaning as rhetoric, but doesn't describe what happened accurately.
Put very, very, simply what happened was a form of 'robbery' similar to the enclosure movement, where societies collective wealth was transferred from one group to another, using the state apparatus, for the benefit of a tiny group of 'aristocrats' and at the expense of a massively larger group of 'peasants.' A historic transfer of wealth like this has nothing to do with 'socialism.'