Defining social order
The problem for us is that in social animals there are no predefined rules. The structure the society takes is ultimately a function of all the individuals in it.
If the nature of the individuals within the society changes then so does the society.
There is therefore no predefined optimal social structure.
Every individual in that society will, of course, dream of an optimal social structure which is the one in which most of their needs are met but it is a fallacy to presume that this is predefined.
Social structure is fluid but we will always be attempted to rig it
The origin of hierarchy
Even simple organisms have to interact in an energy efficient way. If, every time two crayfish were to interact aggressively to determine status and who is entitled to what they would soon exhaust each other. The weaker crayfish would die as would the dominant one. It is in the interest of crayfish DNA to come up with a way of minimising this. So, crayfish behaviour changes according to the outcomes of the interactions. One crayfish changes its neurons so that it will retreat from threat and the other crayfish doesn't. These are different approaches chosen by the animals each with an advantage and disadvantage. The submissive crayfish may well live to fight another day while the more aggressive one will some day meet its match. The interaction between the two is a way for the strategies to be divided most effectively. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other - it means that they are both different.
Another important aspect of hierarchy is that it is learnt. Despite what we might like to believe animals are not born dominant or submissive. If you take the crayfish example the order can very easily flip. If the hierarchy is disrupted and a crayfish is introduced that dominates both cray fish then when the disruptive cray fish is removed a new hierarchy will reestablish itself which in 50% of cases will be the reverse of the previous arrangement.
Dominance and submission are learnt. They are fluid. There is no such thing as a natural order. We have invented that.
Things have changed
In any group there are those who are more aggressive and those who seek power more. It's bound to happen.
In the past the dominant
Now, those who relentlessly seek dominant positions in society have much more tools at their disposal to gain that position and to protect themselves in it. They can hide behind organisations and remain invisible. They can gather much more power than before. They can do many more things.
In the past the aggressive impulses of the psychopaths among us were curtailed by reliance on others and a limit in means to power. Now there is no limit. They hide in the infrastructure of international security and banking.
The way things shape up next is dependent on other characteristics of the individuals involved. Let's say the group are only capable of teaming up and suppressing the drive to be aggressive to each other in the short term. They might well overthrow one individual male but he will soon be replaced and the cycle can begin again. There isn't that much advantage in this.
hat this approach would not dominate all the time. The drive to collaborate is still driven by a drive to achieve.