Whatever you want to say about the OO inspiration of how Rust and Go are structured, they are both clear and deliberate rejections of the OO orthodoxy from that period. They both deliberately don't have classes. They both deliberately eschew inheritance. They both deliberately have less-granular, less-configurable "encapsulation" rules.
And: "encapsulation" is a term we only have because of class-based object-oriented programming. As a professional C programmer in the 1990s, I'd have gotten dinged on a message board by a C++ person if I claimed that I was "encapsulating" when I hid the structs for my timer library or my trie library behind a void pointer. We had abstract data types long before mainstream class-based OO, and then class-based OO claimed credit for the idea.
I also think, as you've alluded to here, mainstream OO has a lot of bad ideas that get people in trouble. The obvious one is animal->mammal->cat->tabby, but there's also the debacles that happen when people try to unify storage with the same inheritance ideas used by compute.
More than anything else though, I think these are the kinds of details you can just learn on the job. What's fundamental to programming? Ironically, it's a lot more of the stuff you get in a Scheme-based class --- and I'm saying this as someone who does not like Lisp. I think Python is a step in the right direction here.
