I think we have unfortunately apt historical comparisons. The economic state of Eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th century matches a society where wealth had been completely and utterly bifurcated.
You mean it was a whole political theory resulting in a revolution "to end class society" who immediately, nearly as a first step created a new elite class, equally impossible to enter and with far bigger wealth inequality than capitalism?
Judging by the reaction in discussions it is a very sore point of socialists to point out that Marx was obviously upper class, definitely part of the bourgeoisie and in his actions shows that he is entirely unwilling to give that up. The same goes for other famous socialists, from Engels to Lenin.
There are even voices that claim the point of socialism was never to end inequality but rather to take far more wealth for themselves. The "halfway to robin hood" jokes, they certainly take from the wealthy, and everybody else, but they never seem to get around to giving it to the poor ...
I don't think anyone was suggesting this was a successful project or even a project that earnestly pursued its stated objectives, thus the scare-quotes around the slogan.
The result was “seizing the means of production”