I study international relations and there are three (four-ish) ways of conceptualizing power dynamics within the system. Because the system is anarchic (without a central, dominant power) the individuals within the system workout the power dynamics within them. These power dynamics are called 'polarities.' So we have unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, and apolar. Unipolar: think the US domination of culture, economics, and politics in the 1990s and just following WW2. Bipolar: the Cold War, anyone will tell you that the Cold War is the best and most clear example of bipolarity. Two great powers (the US and Russia) essentially equal in military, economic, and social control over the whole system. multipolarity and apolarity: for this we can think about the interwar period (the 1920s and 30s). We have more than two countries with relatively equal power, that's multipolarity. We can look at this same situation from another angle. Instead of equal powers, there is no one dominant power hence a- polarity (without polarity). The relevance this has to this thread is that, in my view, multi/apolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity are cyclical and usually reset society back at a hierarchical system. So while people become discontent with the hierarchy now, they will even the playing field (to multipolarity) until it shifts back to a unipolar order. Actors within the system (countries, citizens, club members) decide what they want the hierarchy to be, and when they decide thats not working, new powers and hierarchies will rise. There will always be a hierarchy, except in transitions.

There's a difference between structural hierarchy and submission/domination/caste, which I will call a "value hierarchy". Structural hierarchy is how you manage a large population. It is more or less a form of specialization based on whether you are good at hard skills, managing tasks, or managing people. A manager isn't "better" than those they manage. They are handling the distribution of labor, but cannot perform the amount of labor they are managing. In fact, I would almost say that management could be reframed as a service for the laborers. Offloading the politics and administrative tasks onto someone who dedicates themselves to these tasks, while they focus on actual production. But with things like domination and caste, it is more often antithetical to being "civilized". Humans have a very strong, often violent, aversion to value hierarchies. Amongst groups of friends, association is voluntary and tasks are agreed upon. If someone thinks too highly of themselves, it is instinctual to knock them down a peg. If someone thinks ill of themselves, it is instinct to lift them up. Value hierarchies can really only be maintained if the scale is large enough to not be experienced in-person, or at least not very strongly. It isn't that they "submit". It is that they haven't withdrawn consent. In essentially every single unstable society, the key defining feature is that the hierarchy became too value-oriented that it lost the consent of its participants: Tyrannical rulers. Authoritarian regimes. Single-party rule. Unregulated markets. All these societies exist in a state of constant turmoil and revolt because they govern without the consent of the governed. Exactly the least civilized places on Earth. The key traits of stable societies are things like public accountability requiring the consent of the ruled, and a reduction in disparity between the top and bottom. Rome was its strongest when its people flourished. Rome started to crumble when it instead demanded obedience.

This is just how humans function. All successful civilisations followed this model.