It's nothing to do with economic politics - making a monitor stand that costs that much (unless it's pure greed) is just plain, bad, form-over-function, not-fit-for-purpose design - as is making a monitor in that price range that doesn't come with VESA mounting (which is
just 4 threaded bolt holes that even the new <$100 Raspberry Pi display somehow manages to include) as standard.
The word "similar" is doing a lot of work in that statement... Otherwise, a perfectly functional VESA desk stand would cost a lot less than that:
https://www.startech.com/en-gb/display-mounting-ergonomics/fppneustnd
That took me 5 seconds to find, I'm sure I could find a silver one. The catch is that the Pro XDR inexplicably lacks VESA mounting holes and even Apple's VESA adapter will set you back an extra $200 (and gets you a magnetic quick-release even if you're putting the display in an insecure area where that's not such a good idea).
Sure, because most of the height-adjustable stands available for $500 rather inconveniently come with a free display attached right where the Pro XDR would go!
More seriously, Apple have decided to use an (inevitably patented-to-the-hilt) proprietary mount rather than industry-standard VESA which adds $200 for the official VESA adapter to the cost of any competing mount.
If you want to talk about "anti-capitalism", that sort of deliberate restriction of competition (possibly backed by government-imposed artificial monopolies like patents) may or may not fall under your preferred definition of "capitalism"... If Apple think their wonderful stand is really worth $1000 it should stand on its own in a free market, without deliberately omitting a standard feature (VESA mount) and effectively adding $200 to the cost of any alternative.