There is no natural state to the world beyond the most fundamental and granular principles. Ironically this is partly why right wingers consistently fail at everything they do, and can only succeed in short bursts with some faggy ideology or another like MIGAtardism, the Nazis, the South, and so on. It is because basically reactionaries react against
something and what they happen to be reacting against is the natural state of the world, namely, that it is inherently within human self interest to cooperate at the most basic and fundamental level.
What leftists tend to get wrong is that humans naturally divide themselves into groups. This fracturing is partly a hardwired thing. The 250 person tribe rule will come into play, and otherwise humans have a tendency of dividing into "teams" which is what right wingers always get wrong because they try to do it along something faggy and retarded like skin tone, despite the fact they have more in common ideologically with people they despise. The irony being, that they are always going to be destined to fail because they are conflict oriented. We just saw this globally. They tried creating a worldwide coalition of nationalists and populists, and what you got was things like even Boris Johnson laughed at Trump behind his back and Bolsonaro immediately abandoned him. You see this with /pol/ where they spend all their time basically bitching about their own countrymen to foreigners, and bitching about the one damn time we ever had a pan-European polity because they all hate the EU. They're the definition of divided we fall.
Progressivists fail because they deny the most basic human biology, and I don't just mean sex differences, I mean they flatly deny the reality that if you're born with a dick, you're a male, and are always going to be a male regardless if you make yourself a eunuch with tits or not.
The religious right always fails because they tend to incorporate the purest trashcan of ideology in direct contradiction of factual reality possible rather than incorporating those facts for reasons that continues to mystify me, be it Islamists or Christian Evangelicals or whoever. I mean basic shit like climate change, heliocentric solar system, evolutionary biology, things that unlike them the Catholic Church does not argue with today and that is partly why Catholicism is strong as an institution, because it does not blow with the winds and accept dumb shit like the whole gay agenda but it likewise accepts basic scientific facts at least with time. This is something American Protestant fundies and Islamists fail to do, which again mystifies me because if anything a deeper probing of reality with science should exemplify the majesty of God's creation more than anything in terms of ideology but whatever.
The thing is, you have to start at the natural sciences. This is something few people do politically because politics by its very nature is a few sociopaths and malignant narcissists rising to the top to exploit people less clever, less amoral, less ruthless, less manipulative, and less clever than they are for their own personal benefit, which is partly why hardcore theocracies, Commie dictatorships, corporatocracies, and right wing dictatorships all ultimately look the same, because they are all being driven by largely identical malignant personalities. Likewise, all mass movements ultimately are similar because bydlo, bydlo never changes. It is why Communism has always failed to some extent because you have these dumb bydlo who haven't got the peasantry bred out of them yet.
If you really wish to explore the "natural" politics, you must first start with the natural sciences--not retardation like "social darwinism" which is actually anti-darwinistic as the lone wolf always dies alone at the end while the healthy cooperative hunting pack thrives--and then move on to the psycho-political. When you understand the basic premises of human psychology everything from markets and major dynamic systems to small villages and political movements becomes much much easier to understand, and your understanding only gets hampered when you wish to inject how you wish
things to be into how things actually are
which is often difficult to do.
The problem, of course, is that human beings also actually are
pretty malleable. Like you're not just going to believe in a certain type of thing at birth. Your personality direction itself may change dramatically considering what environment you're brought up in. Like even a legit clinical psychopath is going to have wildly differing outcomes based on what sort of upbringing and society he was raised around. He's still going to be a clinical psychopath, but his psychopathy will take on wildly differing expressions based on whether he's from a broken home, raised in a mafia family, a political elite, a surgeon father and lawyer mother in a nice prep school and so on. That's just personality development and personal direction and for one of the most unchanging and solid types of personality out there, not even counting whatever ideologies a person gets exposed to and gravitates towards.
In truth, there isn't a whole lot ultimately that either the far right or the far left has rooted in reality. They're typically more utopian or romanticist in their thinking too. We've had this discussion before but one tends more towards a glorious future that will never come and another towards and romantic past that never existed.
I think that ironically Hitler had a better grasp of reality in a certain sense than many of his peers, which is partly why he got as far as he did, including the fact he was downright embarrassed by German history that his fellow retards wanted to LARP about. The success of any political movement is really more based in how well you can whip up the masses and seize institutional machinery though, while usually a truly successful one is the one that just accepts basic facts of reality even if they want to change them, and some of those premises can indeed be changed. However, you are never going to get rid of things like lower tier merchants and trade, any more than you can do away with bydlo doing bydlo things with their bydlo interests. The Roman governors understood this incredibly well also which is why they utilized bread and circuses. It is also why a lot of asshole rulers usually resorted to pitting people against another until they were too distracted to do anything about removing the rulers from power. But none of these governments are eternally and not a single one was ultimately set in stone. We got ostensibly democratic societies and republics once again as the default mode for the centers of world power after a few thousand years, and in time we'll have monarchies and theocracies again, probably on my own country within a thousand years.
I think your mistake is in thinking there is any kind of solidity. It's a thing I think the Hindus and Buddhists figured out about the world long ago. The only true constant on the earth is change. It only looks solid because you are in the moment, but on a long enough time frame everything changes, including eventually the nature of what it even means to be a human, just like a few hundred thousand years ago meant something very different. The key thing is you have to accept that change and roll with it while embracing how things are, and what are the things that can be changed and cannot be changed, and in terms of changing a society that generally takes time. Like even my country looks pretty different than it was a couple hundred years ago.