I’d add that, more than anything else, leftist fixation on older theory is more than just idolizing people who are not very “saintly.”
I think, at its core, older leftist theory is still very geared toward an industrial society. It found purchase primarily among trade unions representing industrial workers, and in some ways, I don’t think we have adequately “adapted” to a post-industrial world.
Don’t get me wrong, the core tenets of labor participation, labor mobilization, and mass action will probably be relevant tools up and until mass automation occurs across the board. But we don’t have the same working class base we did a century ago. I’d be interested in seeing a greater emphasis on incorporating, in addition to traditionally working class people in trades and “unskilled services,” white collar workers that are nominally distinct from the former groups but are still nevertheless abused and exploited like everyone else.
Obviously, someone who makes $50k/year doing back breaking labor is objectively worse off and more exploited than someone making $100k/year in a computer science or similar field, but the computer science person is probably getting shit on too.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is… maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask – it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren’t socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.