Yeah, if you read the history of development in different countries you see there are quite interesting differences in how capitalism evolved different places.

That even applies before social democrats started winning elections in Nordics. The type of capitalism that evolved in Norway in the 1800s has been called democratic capitalism by some historians as it often sought to benefit the population at large rather than just the rich.

It defies some conventional ideas of the socialism/capitalism division people often use as framework to put countries and systems into boxes.

Norway in the 1800s for instance was one of the countries with lowest taxes. In fact we have a long history of being a relatively low tax country. However the laws passed had a tendency to favor average people over the rich elite. Thus while there wasn't much money spent on wealth redistribution, one sought equality more through the legal system.

Corporations which setup factories to utilize Norwegian natural resources only got a license if they built quality schools, housing, and cooperative shops for the workers.

Big business could not buy and own forests. Lumber was for a long time one of the largest exports from Norway and authorties wanted the wealth from that export to be shared between the rich owners of the sawmills and the farmers that owned the forests supplying the sawmills.

Norway unlike Britain did not have an upper house of lords, so the rich and privileged didn't have the same kind of political power. Also a broader set of the population could vote in Norway than in most other European countries. Hence politicians favoring the policies for the common people tended to get elected.

In fact that was part of the reason taxes were low. Common farmers were kind of stingy and didn't want to pay a lot of taxes. But at the same time there was a high distrust of big business. Hence cooperatives were quite widespread in agriculture, banking sector and other places.