By failing to make a statement on capitalism, it necessarily assumes the two are not in conflict.

No it doesn't. Either there's no logic in that statement at all, or you're playing 5D chess with time travel and I'm playing checkers. While the article says:

Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it

it makes no statement on whether this activity represents a sustainable business model, nor does it explore how selling FOSS may or may not affect other businesses. I said:

It seems to me that the FSF has always refrained from directly making any kind of statement on capitalism, focusing (as the article says) solely on software freedom.

because the article itself ended with:

When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

I don't (and can't) know whether the absence of discussion on FOSS' relation to capitalism represents a touch of myopia (as you suggest) on the part of RMS & the FSF, whether RMS intends to be the Gary Yourofsky of free software and it's a deliberate choice for the sake of optics, or whether it betrays a pro-capitalism stance, but my feeling is that RMS is more concerned about FOSS as a vehicle for the creation and preservation of a digital commons, and a safeguard against privacy violation, and likely doesn't have terribly many well informed thoughts and opinions on economic systems.