I suppose you could call this Pride and Prejudice for socialists if your idea of socialism is capitalism but with a sprinkling of labor laws and the boss looking at his workers as real humans by the end of it. The romantic elements of the story are really well done, and the character of Mr Higgins is by far the most interesting of the bunch. I suppose he is why people think this is a socialist book, but his opinions are continually undercut by the protagonist (who is very much framed as the right one in conversations on labor simply because her opinions fall in between the laborers and the capitalists).
When we were first introduced to the love interest, my immediate thought was that he couldn't possibly be the love interest because a so-called socialist book would not have us pining after a capitalist who exploits his workers, but I was wrong.
My point is: when I read Jane Austen, it's about rich people. It's not about the working class, and it doesn't try to discuss the conditions or desires of the working class. Therefore, I can enjoy the story and the romance, and the romance is written so well in North and South that I know it would have been the case here as well. Instead, it endeavors to be a romance while also discussing the issues of the laborers of the time. That's a huge undertaking, and considering the era it was written, I don't fault the author for her frankly milquetoast views on the relationship between the capitalist and working classes. I fault people who tout this book as much more than it is. It's not possible for me to overlook the love interest's dehumanizing opinions of his workers, even if he does eventually begin to consider them able-minded adults.