I might be taking the analogy of organic systems too far - but the stuff that seems to “just happen” as a natural result of certain kinds of organization and how firmly tilted in the self defense of the system certainly feels like it doesn’t require conscious effort. Whether one brings panpsychism into things and wants to read the metaphor literally, or not, is a step beyond the point.

I don't know anything about panpsychism, but societies as self-stabilizing systems are a fairly common idea for any sociologist influenced by Marxism. there's entire books with circuitboard-like diagrams for that and walls of text that make Deleuze and Guattari look like a light novel. system theory and all that jazz. i never looked deeply into that because it's so incredibly dry and information-dense.

if the material point 2 weren’t true, would the ideological points 1 and 3 exist in the form they do?

most likely as fringe views only. it would be extremely hard to mainstream them. sure, false consciousness always boils down to people acting against their very material needs, it's the very point of bourgeois ideology to make people do contradictory things that hurt their class interests. but such an absurdly self-damaging idea has to rest on a mountain of previously accquired false assumptions to be believed. when we're talking really egregious stuff like "let the state interfere with what people do in their bedroom" or "people should surrender bodily autonomy to religious zealots", then yes, i'm assuming that it either aligns with the interests of these people or they can ignore it somehow, otherwise you couldn't on-board them for this kind of obscene overreach.