Witch-hunting is a reaction to fear, and when scared people tend to stick together more.
I have already explained at length in
this thread that socialism has nothing to do with collectivism. Actually, the
generous welfare system of northern European countries (not just Scandinavia, but also the UK, Benelux, Germany and France)
is more likely to work well in an individualistic society than a collectivist one.
Actually, collectivists can be broadly divided into two categories: the
tribal/clannish collectivists (most common in Europe, Middle East and Africa), and the
nationwide collectivists (like in East Asia). Social welfare can work well in nationwide collectivist societies like Japan or China, but not in clannish ones, like in Mediterranean countries. The reason is that clannish societies always seek the good of their own extended family or small village community rather than of the whole nation or country. With such a mindset, people hate to pay taxes to a distant central government and are therefore much more likely to hide their revenues, so that there will never be enough money in the system for a generous redistribution to take place. That is essentially why countries like Greece (or most of the Balkans) are in trouble financially.
Nationwide collectivists like the East Asians place the definition of "group" at a much higher level (all the compatriots, which in East Asia usually means all the people who speak their language and share their culture and ethnicity). A welfare system can easily work because individuals feel that the greater good of their homogeneous society is important enough to pay taxes and contribute to the system.
Individualists may prosper in either system: a strong social welfare state like in northern Europe, or a fend-for-yourself system like in the USA. The main difference between these two types of societies is ethnic
homogeneity. Small North European countries are far more homogeneous in every respect than the huge melting pot that are the USA.
Individualists will have more faith in the system if they know that most of the other contributors are similar to them, especially if like in Germanic countries people have a generally good reputation for trustworthiness and honesty. The problem comes when too many different people (untrustworthy and dishonest) come into the system and try to get as much benefit from it while contributing as little as possible. This is the most fundamental cause of the present uproar and frustration of North Europeans against African immigrants in their countries.
Eventually, if too many cheaters infiltrate the system, North Europeans countries will have little choice but to adopt a more American-style system that benefits the most capable and industrious people and neglects the rest of the population.
In short, socialist/welfare states tend to benefit individualists in countries where most people are
individualistic and honest, but fails to work in mixed societies. This is where the link with autism because interesting, because autistic people are both more individualistic and more honest than the average. This is probably because these two traits go hand in hand.
Honesty is essentially the quality of not deceiving or hiding things. Autistic people don't lie (hiding the truth or facts), don't play mind games (hiding one's true feelings), and don't have hidden agendas (hiding one's intentions). These are all what constitute honesty. Honest people are almost inevitable more frank and direct too. That is a direct consequence of honesty. And we all know that very sociable people are rarely frank and direct, because it is easier to alienate people when you tell the truth to people's faces all the time than when you use white lies and insincere compliments (like the "pleasers"). That is also why politicians are almost never honest, because the democratic system is made in a way that rewards the most sociable and mass pleasing individuals. This may also be why in mixed societies like the USA, people descended from clannish collectivist societies (like South Italy or Ireland) tend to make the best politicians (I mean best at campaigning and getting elected, not necessarily best at governing).