Au contraire, it is very remarkable. If capitalism "took over" - so to speak - a social structure created by its predecessor, organized it to its own advantage and transformed it, it then follows that socialism would need to do the same: take over the social structure created by capitalism (i.e. the "yuppies" - or more seriously the very diverse labor force) organize it to its own advantage and transform it.
That has a profound implication for the left strategy - stop wasting your time on freaks and weirdos rights, prisoner's rights, rights of groups that nobody ever heard of, and kindred exotic and "principled" but marginal issues - and concentrate on attracting and organizing software engineers, medical professionals, lawyers, accountants, service professionals etc. For these people the preoccupation with freakiness - that characterizes much of the left - is a wet blanket, a net liability, a turn-off.
This does not mean to abandon issues like minority rights, anti-discrimination, justice in criminal justice, abortion, etc. - but reframing it. For example, instead of rallying for "gay marriages" - which is certain to alienate a lot of folk - one can rally for the universal right to enter any civil union of one's choosing i.e. reframing from a narrow minority right (which sounds like special entitlement to many) to a universal right which most people are more likely to support. Likewise, instead of rallying for "our brothers" in prisons and death rows (no society ever, even a socialist one, will have much sympathy for criminals), reframe the issue as a universal right to live a life free of crime (which would also attract people who are the victims). Similarly, instead of rallying for equal pay for women - rally for a universal right to employment according to one's needs and abilities. In the same drift, instead of the "right to an abortion" - rally for the universal right to health care (including reproductive health) and the right have a family that fits one's needs and values.
Such reframing of the "traditional" left issues as "universal rights" will not only sound true - since universalism has always been the key principle of the left - but it will sound more attractive to social classes (stratified and diversified labor) that developed under capitalism.
Of course, a "shopping list" of universal rights is not enough - one also needs a positive philosophy (not to be confused with grievances and critiques of other philosophies) that gives the rational grounding and justification for these rights. The neo-liberals have such a philosophy in the rat-choice model of behavior and the free market ideology built on it. The left must come with an alternative equivalent.
One possibility is a concept of "social economy" popular in francophone and Iberian countries and more recently in EU (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/), but virtually unknown on this side of the pond (oops, except in Canada). It essentially defines an economy in the service of society rather than individual profits, based on principles of democratic self-governance, social solidarity, and voluntary participation. Basically, while the US is the holdout for neo-liberalism, the concept of social economy is on the rise around the world (I also heard it is big in India too). So perhaps the best thing the US left can do is to stop navel-gazing and follow the trends developing elsewhere in the world.
Wojtek