There was a guy I used to work with who was a world traveler. I asked him one time what country he'd like to live in when he retired. He said Norway.
I asked him why, and he said because the gov. does so much for their citizens. I asked him then if that's where he was going to live when he retired. He said no. I said why is that, I thought Norway was the greatest country in the world? He said because the cost of living is too high.
I asked why he thought it was so great then. Then with a little irritation he repeated because the gov. does so much for the citizen.
I then said well why not move there? He looked at me with disgust, and walked away.
It's not so clear that "socialism in one country" fails IF the country is ethnically homogeneous, such that (for example) paying taxes to the NHS benefits what are in effect your cousins.
The NHS was EXTREMELY popular with the British people. It's popularity is declining as immigration is rising, which is what you would expect.
Most of the "right-wing" parties in Europe are openly socialist, proposing a "socialism in one country" or, in the case of Generation identitaire or Golden Dawn, a socialism linked to nationality rather than citizen status.
They can't very well call their programs "national socialism", but that's what they are.
My last sentence was cut off, but obviously “national socialism” is in no way (other than as a rhetorical device) right wing. I do accept the construction that fascism as developed by Mussolini and the Falange in Spain were right-wing movements, but the NSDAP regime was quite different from either of them. The adoption of “fascism” as a name by the theoreticians of German NS was basically a misappropriation to “Europeanize” their movement.
I knew a guy from Norway for a few years. He thought their brand of socialism was just great.
However I’ll tell you that Norwegian socialism would not be so palatable were it not for offshore oil revenues.