TWTP, have you considered that the kind of philosophy you are espousing (ontology, the duality of mind, object/subject discussions)
Hold on a second: you're using that parenthetical list as if all the things in it belong together. Ontology just means the "study of what is", which may or may not include the mind, duality of mind, or discussion of the subject/object division. We want to get rid of bad ontology, and keep a good one. I don't espouse "ontology" generally, I espouse a particular one.
I don't like dualism as an ontology because it sets up a division between the world and "you", and thus writes people a blank check for talking about the "real" vs. the unreal world. I, by contrast, think that a notion of what "you" are as distinct from your world is entirely incoherent, and that therefore talking about yourself, or others, as if they were these static little objects that receive and transmit information through a medium called physical reality, is not only a gross distortion of our actual experience, but actively hinders what the "individual" COULD BE if it was real in the first place, which we don't have any evidence of.
can be used as a method of societal control that works for economic injustice not against it?
Yes, of course philosophy can be used for these purposes, and I have thought about it. The way I see it working in this society is this (and please do let me know what you think of this; it's a model I've developed primarily for explaining the origins of consumerism and if you have any ideas or feedback I'd like to hear it): individualism is the assumption that there are two basic, distinct ontological objects: the self, and the world. Ultimately this induces alienation of the self from the world, and this alienation can then be leveraged by those in power, because all "they" (those around who have resources, including both governments and just manipulative people generally) have to do is convince you that some object x (which they have access to) is the end to the alienation you've been suffering from. Hence the consumerist anticulture of the US, where money and physical possessions are pursued as an end in themselves. This of course works out for the state, because the more stuff you buy, the more you will work to get money, and the more of that income they can tax for wars, etc.!
This notion that there is any reason to acquire physical objects at all comes from the idea that the self is in some significant way very different from the physical world, so that we need to GET what is different from us, because it's something we LACK. But this premise of the state, that we all LACK something, fundamentally, is one of the most insidious lies ever told, and it comes from having a dualistic ontology. The Christian idea of "original sin" is very much similar to this.
If you want to enslave a population, make them enslave themselves. Dictators and men with guns and whips can be overthrown, but it is much harder to overthrow an INTERNAL tyrant. To get someone to enslave themself, convince them they are deficient; give them dualism!
Where do you find published philosophers? In positions of authority at academic institutions, in the employment of the wealthy as members of "think tanks" or as theory specialists, or employed by governments to work on "the big issues", i.e., economics, social justice and the allotment of wealth. Additionally many of the names that you mentioned write in a style that is unintelligible to the vast majority of the people on this planet (including myself, and I have studied philosophy in college) which to me is the best demonstration of why their ideas shouldn't be trusted; only a very elite group can claim any ownership over these ideas and we have to trust this elite to translate these high ideas into common concepts for the 99% of the population that can't understand them without help. So metaphysical speculation becomes another hierarchical system.
Do you fully understand the way in which your computer is operating right now to show you these words? Does your knowledge of it functioning have any impact on it functioning? Is philosophy not just another type of technology like the computer? Does the fact that most cannot understand it bear at all on the question of its usefulness?
Also, why do you think hierarchies are bad?
