So what is it when you see society as a series of interlocking systems and institutions whose primary mission is to perpetuate those systems and institutions, often in cruel and inhuman ways, but almost always subtly, barely perceivable by those who are enslaved by the ideology of those systems? (Edit: I'm not entirely totalatarian/bleak about this; there is room for human connection even in a gulag.)
I think it starts with birth, when our parents decide to have children for their own ends. Then we are assigned a role inside that family system--savior, scapegoat, healer, mediator, surrogate parent, etc. We are taught how to see the world, to see relationships, in ways that benefit the family system. It's not abuse, it's love. We are taught to shut down, to not listen to our own voices, because to be independent, to see that the family system is there to serve itself and not you, the child, is emotionally- and maybe life-threatening.
Then it continues in school. In the most pessimistic systems, teachers--whatever there original desires to teach were--are there to fulfill metrics, and those that meet metrics are rewarded, and those that do not are punished. Your role isn´t to learn about who you are, or to develop as a human, but to fulfill the metrics the teachers have. Teachers who take time to learn about you or foster your growth as an individual are eventually weeded out.
Then maybe you go to work, maybe professional work. Your first job is to make your employer feel good about themselves and make them look good to THEIR superiors. If you are in a profession, your other role is to affirm the legitimacy of the profession. You are never to acknowledge that the system is corrupt, that the institution is there primarily to serve itself.
Then in our personal lives, in need of companionship, we make an arrangement with someone else: "I'll be who you want me to be if you be who I want you to be." And when this fails to satisfy us, we decide to have children, and the process continues.
I don't have much hope. Yes, I do think a French-style revolution will somewhat reset the clock on capitalist exploitation, but ultimately, this is just HUMAN behavior. As long as we live in a society, we will create systems and institutions, and we will sacrifice our individuality to gain the protection of those systems and institutions. It is a cycle only escapable only by a few individuals, and at great cost.
So what is this called?
I'll drop my personal experiences in a comment below because I've already shared the highlights before.
Have you read any Marxist literature? Even if you don't follow the ideas beyond a criticism of capitalism I think you'd benefit from being able to see through a lense of historical and dialectical materialism.
You definitely have some unaddressed contradictions. An appeal to "Human nature" being the obvious one. An unsatisfactory answer, personally for me, that is about as helpful as "God did it".
Most of what you are talking about are structures of hierarchy within a patriarchal, white supremacist, class system. These are very much not "human nature" and have not existed for most of humans evolutionary history.
I haven´t read Marx directly, but I know what his ideas are.
As far as "inevitability" goes, I'm saying systems and institutions are part of human nature and we build them without thinking about them, and we likewise serve them without thought. What forms those systems take is a result of culture and history, sure, but they will always be there to some extent.
And what is the difference between something being inevitable, and something giving a huge evolutionary advantage to one society over another? Even if you could somehow eliminate white supremacy, and patriarchy, and all that, what's to say that something equally totalitarian and tyrannical wouldn't spring up in its place? The inevitability is that shitty systems that enslave people are GOOD for crop yields to feed armies to invade free people who might just grow enough for themselves and spend the rest of their time fucking around and enjoying life.
Has that, you know, ever occurred to you, man?
This sentence tells me you need to read Marx or modern day Marxist literature for yourself. You likely have a major misconception of what Marx wrote or Marxist that expanded it. Dialectical and Historical materialist thought are the people "thinking about" the things you're saying people aren't talking about.
There is significantly more to Marxism than a criticism of capitalism. Marx and Engels develop Historical materialism to analyze and explain how and why systems develop. This includes feudal and prehistoric ways in which humans organize themselves into class structures and structures of government.
A lot of what you're saying people don't think has been described and thought about by Marxist for centuries.
Convergently Marx-pilled, then?
Where do I say that "people don't think" about this? I'm not saying i invented it; I'm probably just regurgitating half-digested strands of thought I've collected around my travels; I'm just wondering what to call it. For instance, I'm guessing the critiques of "great men" history are largely informed by what you're talking about.
I'm also not sure where you're disagreeing with me. You say Marx talks about prehistoric class structures, etc., which certainly doesn´t contradict my comment than humans create and serve systems wherever they go.
I maybe misunderstood what you meant by "not thinking about them". But, yes, it sounds like you should take a dive into historical materialism.
Oh, I see, yes, I mean people instictively do all kinds of things outside of their conscious awareness, like building their identity around opposition to or difference from others (guilty). Not that some people aren't going to notice, but it would take the awareness of an unlikely number of people to change things.