Regardless of my own feelings on this matter, I've met too many people who would argue that humanity is an intrinsically individualistic animal who socializes only out of self-interest (and who should therefore never be forced into social relationships) to claim the question is "unarguable".
Anyone saying that the 21st century isn't someone who is interested in science or facts, I would suggest, or very selective about it, and primarily choosing to believe something to support an otherwise hard-to-support political philosophy. Particularly "socializes only out of self-interest" is just hilarious Ayn Rand-esque drivel which no serious anthropologist or social scientist could do much more than giggle at. You can't even say that about cats (if you actually know anything about them), let alone humans! Plus it requires humans to not be driven by instinct at all, which is again, fantastical Randian nonsense.
Also, just because a creature is sometimes selfish, doesn't make it not inherently social. Anyone trying to tell you chimps aren't social because they ate more cherries than they gave away is selling you a bridge, frankly (doubly so with humans, who routinely make more altruistic or group-favouring decisions than that).
So to be clear I mean unarguable in a factual sense - which it is - not that some people won't try to argue it. There are always the equivalent of Flat Earthers out there, for every subject. The less physically obvious and unavoidable it is, the more of them there are. Doesn't make them right.
So communists tend to argue that humans naturally like to work and to support each other and that absent compulsion they would continue to do so
No? That's a truly bizarre and seemingly completely ignorant simplification of Marxist and communist thought that is also not even true, because opinions on the degree of human eusociality vary pretty widely in various different schools of Marxist and communist thought. I don't want to litigate that here in detail because ENworld is not really the place for it but I really suggest you might want to read and try to understand some Marx, and then compare and contrast with say, Mao, before making such wild generalizations in future.
It's funny because I'd agree with your general point that many people believe their favoured form of society is in some way "natural" and this is part of what the Greeks were discussing - but it's not consistent in the way you suggest. There have been many, for example, who argue that civilization and orderliness is not natural or innate, but instead something we have to work hard on, and therefore all the more to be honoured and sanctified. Indeed, that's no an uncommon view, historically, especially in Christian societies. It's a very specifically modern view that for something to be "good", it must also be "natural", and often sits very uncomfortably with ideas it gets put alongside.
lawful and chaotic would IMO, be better of getting renamed as regulation (or structure) and liberty, they're too iconic to be changed now but i think it would be a massive increase in understanding the concepts they are meant to represent.
With respect, those aren't easier to understand than Law/Chaos, they're
entirely different concepts, which come from a very different place, to the cosmic, magical Law/Chaos of early D&D (which is what current Law/Chaos derives from and still reflects to a large degree). Also, the idea that individual liberty and regulation/structure are
inherently opposed is extremely easy to argue as naive. A lot of un-hierarchical, no-written-rules (or even any writing) societies will kick you out of that society, that tribe, for behaviours that would be "technically legal" in a complex and heavily regulated society, and where you would be allowed to continue those behaviours, even if people frowned about them. Hierarchical and and un-hierarchical would be an easier distinction, but also not that reflective of Law/Chaos.