See the cold war era for a quick rundown of US interference with socialist governments.

I'm saying... when the US instigates and funds a civil war in country X, you can't then say X's government lost power because of their economic policies.

A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism.

The Nordic countries aren't even attempting to ban private businesses, or claiming that as their goal.

The track record for countries that call themselves socialist is pretty grim, on the other hand.

By that account Venezuela was certainly not a socialist country.

You can't use "socialism" to mean "Venezuela, and only Venezuela (well, maybe Cuba)" and then "anything that gives more power to the US federal government". Choose one. (I'm not saying you do, but so many people do.)

From what I've seen, many people who believe the "danger" of socialism are also quite convinced that the US is in the danger of slipping into socialism. Why that doesn't happen in Sweden is left as exercise.

Under what definition are these socialist states?