The Soviet union was quasi-socialist. It had elements of social ownership of means of production, but wasn't democratic, so means of production weren't actually in the hands of workers.
Sweden was social democratic. This is not socialism, although it's sort of supposed to be: However, Sweden's social democracy failed to achieve any kind of true worker influence, in fact, it created the illusion of social equality when in fact Sweden has extreme capital concentration (Sweden is one among four countries with wealth GINI above 85-- the club is Russia, the US, Sweden and the Netherlands). Essentially the Swedish economy is controlled by a very small number of multi-billionaires.
What you see in Sweden is instead redistribution from ordinary workers to slightly poorer ordinary workers and to the unemployed, so the high taxes are not actually a progressive or pro-worker policy, but a regressive policy where resources taken from successful workers are used to reduce the dissatisfaction of the poorest with the economic system.
This could perhaps be acceptable if it led to high wages but this has not been the result-- with economic power comes political power, and in my assessment the the desire by the capital-owning class to keep Swedish exports competitive have led to use of low central bank interests rates, intended to reduce the value of wages, as well as a surprising political support for immigration which has existed in the political parties which has no mirror in the views of ordinary people. It has been so successful that it's not unusual to see programmers working on quite hard stuff get paid 45 000-50 000 USD per annum before taxes. At present the wage share of GDP in Sweden extraordinary low, 55%, to be compared to 59% in the US-- so Swedish workers are actually more exploited than US workers.