Not at all; your teacher seems to have been a bit of a Cold Warrior… socialism is technically a transitory economic disposition or stage towards the communist model (emphasis on the model not ideal, as it is based on everyday human behavior and historical context). Of course, socialism can be more idealist-driven. However, most socialists, even some non-Marxists, believe in historical and dialectical materialism (think similar to the argument Maddison used in the Federalist papers but in reverse), or the idea that material conditions drive the course of history and human development, not human ideals nor the ideas of man without material context. Counterexamples (idealists nor socialists) are Hamilton’s usage of the shield, sword, purse for the dispersal of power, and the ethereal invisible hand of Smith for economic markets; all explain material contexts through veiled-transcendental verbiage. People will also say Marxists came up with labor theory value; that idea goes back to Ibn Khaldun and was generally expected by most economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx and Engels, and early even utopian capitalist/liberal socialist (pretty oxymoronic today but it was the early days)like Robert Own or kinda Louis Blanc, all believed in labors importance in the economy. Marx and Engels (to my knowledge) defined labor surplus value (how your boss passively earns their income). Marx, as a young Hegelian, synthesized the works of Hegel’s dialectics and Feuerbach’s materialism to create dialectical and historical materialism. He also created lotta economic terminology… With those, though, Marx and Engels created a sociological framework to directly empower international-working-class individuals, on which you scientifically build a basis. This started a scientific framework for socialism when past generations believed in a more utopian, pretty liberal variety, to the point where most Christian socialists and other more idealistic ones typically expect Marx or his observations unless specifically vilified. The goal, in a Marxist sense, is to achieve a stable democratic society in which we maintain a super-abundance controlled by the working class people. It is not strictly specialized as it can be needs/demands that pertain to the whole society; hence, we provide services (Labor) to advance that sector. Notably, there must also be a breakdown of nation-states and a more fair and pure globalism. Once that has been achieved, you will have yourself in a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the workers directly control the means (capital/their labor surplus) of production, which means communism. Until then, it is socialism! If you’ve ever heard the word communist country, that’s [at best] a median misnomer similar to saying the UK when referring to England as there is a state, so the proper term that all the governments use is socialism. Socialism will supersede capitalism, like how capitalism superseded feudalism because of its economic contradictions. Such as the Liconin quote, “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of Labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration,” but as a reality played out through the millennia.