Why Finland and not Sweden?
Is it due to genography? Sweden is safely situated and hasn’t been invaded for a long time. Even during WWII, it had little to worry about. It made a lot of money and it made even lot more money during the Cold War. So, Swedes seem to get carried away with leftist utopian dreams.
Finns might have ended up like the Swedes, but their geography put them right next to massive Russia. Finland had been conquered by Russia during Tsarist times, and the USSR attacked Finland during WWII, and Finns fought a bitter war and even lost some territory. And even after the peace, Finns had to be live with the knowledge that the USSR was right next door breathing down its neck. Indeed, it’s interesting that Finland was the ONLY European nation during the Cold War that was geographically attached to the Soviet Union but was NOT communist.
So, Finn geopolitics probably made them less naive about leftist fantasies of socialist utopia. With mighty Russian bear at its door, Finland probably maintained a sense of ‘conservative’ nationalism if only out of fear. If a nation is overly conservative, it can hold them back.
And if a nation is overly Liberal, it can foster all sorts of silly unrealistic utopian fantasies about what can be done to improve society.
But Finland seems to have been influenced by both Social-Democracy and awakened to nationalism(if only out of fear of big Russia). So, maybe Finns are politically and socially more realistic about humanity, ideas, and the world. There’s a balance that’s lacking in places like Sweden and Denmark.
Btw, since Liberals tell us that it’s so great for all those Mexicans to flood into America, are any of them saying that millions of poor Russians should flock to Finland to make the place more vibrant and diverse?