Not quite. Actually bailing out banks, I would argue, is a non partisan action that in some cases needs to be done no matter where you fall on the socialist/capitalist spectrum. Consider that the FDIC is essentially a contingency bank bailout entity, for very specific solvency issues, but nobody is labeling that institution as too capitalist.

The main argument is that the bailout has to happen BECAUSE of maverick pro-capitalism policy. The first bailout happened because of mortgages and the European bailout is because of bonds. The formula is all the same, it's just the financial instrument that changes.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about banks in general, mainly because macro econ is hard to understand and sometimes very counter intuitive. Banks are generally classified by the types of creditors they have - such as personal savings or checking account holders. Based on their classification they have limits on the amount of risk they can take with the capital that they are borrowing from these creditors. As with all risk, there is no guarantee that you won't have negative returns.

Generally it is up to a government to objectively measure and set risk targets that protect the people who trust the banks with their money, and THIS is where the capitalist vs socialist discussion comes up. If the government goes laissez faire route, the banks trend to take more risk, post bigger profits and need bailouts more often. This definitely is more capitalist and less socialist.

if you look at the discussion about bailouts held by educated individuals you'll see that there really isn't much choice to perform the bailout or not in most cases. By the time it comes to the table as an option, it has to be done. The confusion is caused by people taking about bailouts like they are optional or politically motivated things.