I think, while we can obviously extract a political significance from anything, part of the issue here is that Stoicism isn’t a political philosophy in the normal sense of the term, and even in what I read of Seneca he’s mostly doing self-help epistolaries like how Aurelius is doing self-help notes. I think, as an ethical philosophy, it’s a matter of interpretation rather than explicit doctrine what the politics of Stoicism is, and I don’t see there being any issue with a progressive interpretation of its values. We’ve seen many times people say that it directs people to merely cope with their class position, but is that true? Epictetus, who would have been regarded by Seneca and Aurelius as the Greek father of Roman Stoicism, was still born a slave and did not by any means suggest that people should remain where they are, and indeed discusses quite a lot about improving oneself and at least attempting to become something great, along with what we’ve discussed about being in cooperation with others, and Seneca for example is very clear that becoming a good person is at odds with politicking and chasing riches and status (despite he himself doing this).