How, exactly, can a statement about where politics should or should not appear be anything other than political?
I'm sure there's a way, but I'm having trouble imagining it.
Economicist and some capitalist can be very apolitical to point they will play both sides to point of becoming “tool”(they have no allegiances or strict moral codes). They spread for biggest bidder who might have political or other personal motives.
Let’s use modern capitalist like Vince McMahon. Do you think he cares about Saudi or messed up stuff they do or he just happy to take his money and leave like most American oil companies. He lets a foreign country use his company for propaganda within that nation to show “hey we are getting better see!”.
This dynamic pokes multiple holes into “class struggles” dynamic which is way more prevalent in Europe and most ancien regimes.
In capitalist society especially they democratic/republic one they are not always directly ill intended or controlling of power like other type of regimes.
They are just uncaring and we oppose anything that takes money from them without a return or somewhat reasonable justification(like being in total war).
Capitalist and bourgeoisie outside of ancien regimes aren’t vindictive or regulating lower class. More stuff that legal more they can profit honestly.
Europeans use to heavily criticize gilded age American raw capitalism for these reasons. You get stuff like Wild West and economic barons especially in rural areas.
By allowing economic freedom to extreme they show how contrary and selfish individuals or groups can become even if from “humble” origins.
You get billionaires and rise of international corporations like Ford, Rockefeller, and “big business” who if not careful will actively work together to target weaker/smaller competition by any means. They will “buddy buddy” into economics oligarchs. They could literally watch world burn around them from ivory towers and gated communities while drinking at lake with money some have.
With peasants and most pre industrial lower classes they are very “shortsighted” or local in world view. If they are fed, entertainment, and “secured”(taken care of somewhat) they can actually be rather easy to please in good times.
It’s that mindset “my daddy was farmer, his daddy was farmer, his daddy daddy was farmer, and so will you likely be farmer like me” is what they would tell their kids.
There was saying in US or by Europeans about US after world war 2. “How do you expect boys who visited Paris and Europe to just return to farm and be happy”. Like French Revolution you have to “expose” them to “alternative” way of life or some humans might not question their “place” in society otherwise unless times are bad(famine, war, disease, etc).
On other end of things as red foreman said “I saw world in 2 and Korea. It shot at me”. Lol. World wars made one part of US more “Eurocentric/Anglocentric” in global views points but other half only got “reminded” of Washington words about Europe. “Do not involved yourself in endless conflicts and politics there”.
The “working class” identity was far from universal especially back then even in Europe itself. The Soviets “politicalized” their peasantry like French Revolution did with theirs.
Like Rome “give them entertainment and bread and they will never revolt” is perfect way to describe lower classes especially before industrialization revolution regardless of regime or ideology of state
