>>2766267>The temporal development of capitalism consistently produces results that resemble socialism, but without the equalitywell (scientific, Marx-Lenin derived) socialism isn't about equality per se, but about winning the bulk of the class struggle (I say bulk because class struggle actually continues under Socialism, according to Lenin) and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually lead to a withering away of the state. It does not purport to solve, for instance, idpol struggles, or even to treat the ex-bourgeoisie and workers as equals. Under the Bolsheviks for example there was a mixture of punishment and pragmatism. By punishment I simply mean that ex-bourgeoisie and clergy, often very elderly, were made to do manual labor that they had no skill in whatsoever because they had never done it in their entire lives. But on other occasions highly educated bourgeois specialists were given collegial seats on soviet government councils because their knowledge was essential to planning the economy or winning the civil war. So even among the ex-bourgeoisie there was unequal treatment. Some got a much better deal than others.
What socialism does purport to do is to socialize what has not already been socialized. Because under capitalism, so much has already been socialized in service of capital. I actually read People's Republic Of Wal Mart right after reading Lenin's Imperialism for the first time and you'd be surprised at the amount of overlaps. Mainly they both stress the need to nationalize monopolies instead of taking the ultimately pointless approach of breaking them up only for them to merge back together after a few decades. Where Lenin differs from that book however is he stresses this process of nationalization can only take place AFTER a violent revolution, while PRWM is a book in a more social democratic tradition, which seems to suggest that reformists under the current system can nationalize these monopolies.