Put bluntly, most of the logic in the argument I'm replying to sounds good but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It presents two false dichotomies as explanation for issues with capitalism. Hence the first paragraph, explaining why those associations are false.

Then I address Norway in the second paragraph, which is given as an example of "good capitalism".

What I am reading from your comment is: Norway is not perfect, therefor the argument you were replying to is invalid or diminished. Might not be what you intended, but that's what it reads like

I'm not sure how you're getting that. I asked my coworker to give it a read without explaining my thesis and they don't see it either. You don't explain why, so I'm at a loss.

I don't think oppression of the global south is a valid criticism of Norway.

Why not? You again don't explain why, so again I'm unsure what you intend beyond "your writing sucks and you're wrong". Give me some substance I can actually respond to!