This sounds on target:

Socialism in it “classical” muscular form, is suited only to an
industrial economy. The “Workers of the World” are, as you point out,
that class of workers who spend their lives operating, or working with,
large machines.
The early Socialist vision of workers was undermined by work hours that
permitted workers to be family men and to be involved in church,
community, or anything other than work. It was also undermined by the
Freudian outlook of the 1950′s that emphasized care of children and
parental involvement. The nuclear family, which was largely a product
of the industrial revolution, undercut the Socialist vision by requiring
both parents to be “family people”. Increasing wealth, increasing
opportunity, and a sense that we could have everything and be
everything, all made it less likely that people would define themselves
by their industrial jobs. As workers become more wealthy and educated,
they are less likely to see themselves as a separate class, antagonistic
to another class.
Feminism was certainly a factor in shaping a social vision that was
incompatible with Socialism, but, to a greater extent, mid-20th Century
Feminism was shaped by the same forces that ended the fetishism of
“workers”. Rosie the Rivetter was compatible with socialism. “Leave it
to Beaver” was not.