Good question… its tough to say with these historical hypotheticals. We don’t know if the USSR or China would have been able to build their industrial socialisms if they didn’t have previous industrial capitalism from western europe to work and learn from. But really, did capitalism itself teach them anything, or was it industrialism itself: its technology, practices, and techniques that helped?

The key difference between the systems being, who controls the surplus, and who receives the benefits of the surplus. If anything, a parasitic private class informed the leaders of USSR of what to be wary of, and not do.

I also doubt the USSR would have been able to become a super-power based on muscle-power alone: industrialism and fossil fuel energy sources were necessary.

My initial thought is that someone, somewhere has to make a new way of doing things ideologically and materially possible before other people can skip the torturous bit in the middle (capitalism, slavery, feudalism, etc, one and day socialism, when it’s seen as backwards to future communists)

I see where you’re coming from, but the people who develop technology, and the people who control production, are usually two different groups. The latter group is parasitic and completely unecessary, while the former is vital. Its a matter of opinion of course, but I don’t think its historically inevitable or necessary that these parasites need to control production for advances to take place. Workers just want to work and make new things, and they do that regardless of the structures above them.

Norway and other bourgeios countries will still have to pass through the same steps that China or Cuba or the USSR did: a revolutionary struggle removing the capitalists from power. Energy tech isn’t going to solve the problem if the people in control of that tech, are private owners.