>Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm

Hierarchies exist all over nature. In all social animals, in food chains, etc.

>To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.

You've lost me, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

>You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton?

Both of those guys lived in advanced hierarchical societies where they could specialize in studying. They didn't have to split time between learning and hunting for food each day. They didn't have to make their own clothing, a specialist (tailor) made them. They didn't have to build their own home, specialists (carpenters and builders) did. Specialization and division of labor is something a society can only do if it organizes. Anarchism doesn't allow for this.

>This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature"

Did greed and ambition not exist in humans before capitalism?

>And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this?

Well, mainly that feminism and environmentalism exist and function. A successful modern anarchist society does not.

>All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed.

Indeed, I'm glad to see that we can agree that anarchism is purely a fun theoretical framework and little more. Good thought experiment, terrible real life idea.