In egalitarian societies "reverse hierarchies" keep people in check. If there is too much bragging, hoarding, or otherwise violating the norms of the group, they band together and shame (or ostracize) the offender until they get back in line or leave. The good of the tribe/community is upheld in such a way that it maintains the autonomy of all individuals and it keeps violence to a minimum. Fast forward to a system where dominance hierarchies begin to emerge and the strong enforce their will on the weak. They are by definition "might makes right" systems.

Here's a short but impactful excerpt from an article in The World Economic Forum that lays out how the rise of agriculture impacted social systems:

"Labor roles became more gendered as well. Generally, men did the majority of the fieldwork while women were relegated to child-rearing and household work. Without contributing food (and by association, without control over it), women became second-class citizens. Women also had babies more frequently, on average once every two years rather than once every four in hunter-gatherer societies.

Because somebody had to have control over surplus food, it became necessary to divide society into roles that supported this hierarchy. The roles of an administrator, a servant, a priest, and a soldier were invented. The soldier was especially important because agriculture was so unsustainable compared to hunting and gathering. The fickleness of agriculture ironically encouraged more migration into neighboring lands in search of more resources and warfare with neighboring groups. Capturing slaves was also important since farming was hard work, and more people were working in these new roles."

That's what I'm saying...