> At the core of game theory and human civilization is communication and trust.

No and no. Game theory is game theory. When Nash says: "Optimal move for non-cooperative participants" there is no communication and no trust. And it is still game theory. The Wikipedia page on the Nash equilibrium mentions game theory 42 times.

I'm not saying what you're mentioning ain't also game theory.

But you're putting an ideological/political motive to freaking maths to then reframe what "game theory" means in your own view of the world.

As a side note I'll point that humans do play games: from toddler to grown up adults. Game theory also applies to something called "games": be it poker or chess or Go or whatever.

Not everything has to be seen through the lens of exploitation / evil capitalism / gentle communism (collective resilience) / etc.