I think you can just as easily say “culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish to tamper with it” as “culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish not to change with it”.
I strongly subscribe to the theory that population density (usually in line with size) is one of the most significant factors in changing social attitudes/organisation. I would totally agree that we can’t go back to any hunter/gatherer tribalism without a massive “culling of the herd”.
Monarchs became unable to manage populations too large, so they spread their powers to select Feudal Lords, who in turn had to spread their powers amongst Capitalists, who presumably will in turn eventually have to spread their power amongst co-operative management (and so on?). Akin to trees with their trunks, branches, twigs, leaf veins…
Living in increasingly close quarters similarly demands stronger co-operative behaviour in the social world as well as the economic, because there is no way out (with everywhere else increasingly populated too, with neighbourhoods rejecting you unless you will keep the peace and allow everyone to get on unhindered as best you can - enter the concept of negative liberty).
Anarchy just doesn’t factor into historical progression except, at best, at each extreme - with hardly anyone on the planet (lone wolves), or with far too many people on the planet that leadership is too spread out too have any real significance, assuming branching out of layers of power continues infinitely.
Anarchy is just “a cool idea” - at best a thought experiment to remind us where not to end up (realised once you’ve thought it through sufficiently).
Co-operativism is the next stage.
Must be a bizarre definition of elite you’re using there. But then mine only includes me…
I’ve lived in an abnormally high number of different houses for my age, 19 so far. They span only a few English counties, though family, friends, partners and holidays have filled in the gaps in terms of my travelling experience throughout the rest of the country - though not so much the rest of the world, I’ve only visited 4 foreign countries across only 2 continents. So in terms of being well travelled, I am and I am not. I feel informed about the USA, despite only having visited there once - through internet contact (and only to the extent one can be through media representation of the place). My best friend grew up and still lives in the Middle East. Living where I do, I am exposed to people from all over the world in a professional environment as well as living amongst all sorts of them - so I know about much of the rest of the world through them, despite not having visited the countries from whence they came. Further, my geography is very good, and I like to read up on other cultures/ways of living.
If I am to generalise, I would subscribe more to a notion of “human tendency relative to circumstances” than some ridiculous notion of a uniform “human nature”. I know people far better than I’ve ever known anyone else know them, and there’s definitely common ground and patterns - despite huge numbers of individual differences and variations.
I regard people who squander their abilities as highly politically significant, despite their lack of knowledge about what they’re doing. They vote in vast numbers for other reasons than political curiosity and knowledge. They keep the same old parties in power, and these parties know this.
Most people who call themselves Socialists are also dipshits. I seek to define Socialism as what it actually is, rather than what it’s made out to be - however futile others might see that endeavour.
I’m neither anti-State nor anti-government. To me, that’s “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. They are here and aren’t going to suddenly disappear forever just because some Anarchists got together. These institutions need to be transformed into something that brings out more favourable conditions (ironically ones that Anarchists would most likely wish would happen immediately without any transition). Socialism is simply more realistic - though I would identify more as a Co-operativist, because even Socialism asks for too much at once.
Not a simple answer to that one for sure. But to force one, I would say emotional/chemical reward due to a certain set of experiences.