CIA Agent: "Boy you Commies sure have some good propaganda! Shame we can see right through it 😌"
KGB Agent: "Sure, Soviet propaganda is something. But we're nothing compared to your American propaganda!"
CIA Agent: "But there's no propaganda in America... 😳"
It's the opposite. During the mid- to late-19th century, suits were the uniform of clerks and administrators. Those higher on the social and economic ladder — such as lawyers, doctors, and politicians — wore the more "gentlemanly" frock coat with a silk top hat. In fact, Labour Party founder Keir Hardie caused quite a stir when he showed up to work on his first day as a Member of Parliament while wearing a tweed suit to show his allegiance to his working-class constituents. The press was shocked, noting that he wore a "cloth cap in Parliament" (a tweed deerstalking cap, rather than the silk top hat).
With time, everyone wore the suit. By the early 20th century, those who owned the means of production wore the same uniform as those who managed them. Blurring this distinction can seem meaningless today, but it was quite a big deal in the early 20th century. Even manual laborers who wore more utilitarian clothing to work — chambray shirts, blue jeans, chore coats, etc — had a suit for religious services on Sunday. Thus, the suit was not a symbol of domination, but rather hid class markers.
To be sure, there were distinctions in how people wore suits and where they bought them. In London, businessmen could be distinguished by whether they bought their clothes from a "City tailor" or a "West End tailor" (the West End being the higher-grade option reserved for those with money). But these were relatively minor and only for the trained eye. Relatively speaking, class symbols today are significantly more obvious not only through the different grades of quality, but also logos and general aesthetics. Hence, to some degree, why fashion changes so rapidly today — people are constantly shifting their social position.
The problem with this is that it's always the left who are expected to give ground. If we truly share a common enemy, shouldn't they be just as willing to compromise? They want us to tone down the woke stuff, okay fine, but why can't we ask them to tone down the religious stuff?