“government intervention in the economy with the aim of redistribution and promoting economic equality”
That is not a definition of socialism. That is a definition of the method used to achieve it. It doesn’t matter what your are talking about; Equality, diversity, sexism, women’s rights, gay-rights, liberty and fraternity; blood and soil, the white man’s burden; democracy, for the people by the people. They are all just liturgies, each one offering nothing more than a bucket of empty slogans to be parroted off by useful idiots.
They are not ideologies, they are meaningless packages of fluffy rhetoric which mask real agendas.
Nothing has changed other than the rhetoric, although a lot of empty babble about “equality” has always been a favourite with socialists. But whether you are talking about Bolsheviks, Nazis or modern day “social democrats” is simply a mask to conceal the nature of socialism. “Redistribution and promoting economic equality” is only possible through state control; state ownership of the means of production, which is what socialism is. In the end it never results in “equality” though because no two people are equal. But ideologues never give up so the “Redistribution and promoting economic equality” becomes a runaway horse requiring ever more measures to cut back on human freedoms and human choices. The problem with freedom is that free people keep making inconvenient choices that lead to unequal outcomes. The road to the gulag was built by wide eyed socialist do-gooders babbling their inane liturgies about “Redistribution and promoting economic equality.”
And the very concept of this thing called “equality” should be enough to freeze the blood of any thinking person if they actually analyse exactly what is required to achieve it and the terrifying repression that would result if it ever was achieved. I guess they have “economic “equality” in North Korea but are you sure you want it in your country? They are pretty good at redistribution too. Socialists always have been, after all how else did they achieve all that “equality.”
By the way the Finns did take part in the siege of Leningrad for a short time. The main reason they were cautious was because they did not want another Russian invasion of Finland. Russian gains during the previous Russian / Finnish war made Finnish access in the north very difficult anyway. The Finns did not have the resources to be of much use to the Germans there and especially after 1942, the Finns were already trying to distance themselves from their alliance with Germany because the Finns, unlike the Nazis, could see the writing on the wall.
A for ideological stances. I don’t have one.