Before I write about the elusive "real value" of things (thank you 
Digression: I've seen Rupert Sheldrake's excellent TED talk about science (YT: The Science Delusion banned TED talk) - which is not so much about science, but how arrogant we are with regards to what we know and don't. Among other things he talks about the speed of light being not so much constant as a.. special variable, quite predictable of course, but not immutable. Is it true? I do not know. But it wouldn't be the first time when science held something to be absolutely true, only to have to revisit the subject when new evidence or idea appeared.
So, maybe after all there could be more calculable determinism to soft social sciences as well?
Imagine a simple equilateral triangle, pointing upwards. Let's say it's bottom edge's length is 100. Therefore height of the triangle is about 86. If the edge's length increases, so does the height.
Now, have you ever played some computer strategy game? Real-time? With soldiers (orcs, robots, aliens) having special green/icons symbolizing health? If they team up, they have just one icon summarizing health of the unit.
Classical picture of social, business, military, religious hierarchy is a triangle. Governance flows from top to bottom, and each layer apart from the very top and bottom ones has one smaller, controlling layer above it, and one bigger controlled layer under it. An army is the canonical example with the layers most defined and most official. And proudly presented, top brass to cannon fodder. Other hierarchies are more complicated or less visible, but it always seems to be a triangle (or pyramid) of sorts. And then all those pyramids, when aligned, make one great pyramid of society.
Very long time ago, when humanity just wandered about great empty plains, hunting and gathering...
the tribes were small. The hierarchies and pyramids minimal, manageable, obvious. 100 people, total wealth, potential and resources of the... bottom layer is, for the sake of argument, all the members. So, distance from the managing top layer is, say, 86. Collective power of the tribe rather small. The agricultural revolution happened and suddenly the triangles got bottom edges of thousands, collective power increased, distance from the top to the bottom increased. But then the industrial revolution happened, and it's not only increased all the factors, it also added a multiplier to collective power. Area of a triangle is 1/2(bh), b being the base and h the height. Formula calculating collective power would be of course much, much more complicated and included variables like not only scientific and industrial factors, but ideologies, organization, etc. But the point is - collectively we can do much, much more.
Ok, now, how the triangles grow? Say, in a hypothetical army one man can manage 10 units below. So simple soldiers are grouped in tens with one officer. Then there is a higher ranked officer managing 10 lesser officers. And the greater number of simple soldiers, the higher number of layers of command. Increasing number of soldiers creates conditions for next layer of command to appear. To form. To be generated.
When a group of people assembles, it creates a pyramid. Imagine characters in a strategy game. By the very act of creating relationship/cooperation between them something new emerges, and it includes potentiality for a power structure. It creates the famous
Inevitably. Surely. Things fall down to Earth. Power vacuums attract certain types of individuals.
Even in a perfectly anarchistic society potentiality for power structure would still be present.
There is a couple of things more to the analogy.
Height of the triangle, which is the distance between ordinary people who are asked more or less nicely to work for the pyramid, depends obviously on the type of ideology implemented to provide narrative justifying and gluing together layers of the pyramid. In positive democracy, where people's voice is not only heard, but even acted upon (think Switzerland), that distance is bearable. More or less. In a country where the Supreme Leader is regarded as God and Emperor, the distance is great. Sometimes seeming like a parody of leadership. And there seems to be some correlation between size of the ego of the ruling class and the perceived or desired distance. There are certain leaders who, for example, are ready to torture and kill someone who dares to laugh at them. Sense of humor is a perfect litmus test of the distance...
And one more thing. Hierarchies are useful for coordination of efforts. Of course they can be said to be oppressive and antihuman, but the most positive side to them is their ability to coordinate, manage, connect. The middle men, so correctly named, might be useful. Or, to be more precise, might have been useful in pre-computer era. Strictly speaking, despite the fact that middle men including the very top of the pyramid are just... helpers. Servant of society. "Minister" comes from Latin and original meaning is "inferior, servant, priest's assistant". And yet kings, queens and prime ministers act and behave as if were gods imperators. Now you know why Latin is no longer taught in schools, and why education system is so rigged. The less educated people are, the more they need the middle men to govern them and the top middle men to show direction.
The good news of course that in the modern era all the layers of the pyramid can be simply chopped off and replaced with smart, autonomous, computerized systems that do not need limousines, stupid suits and crowns. Power vacuums can be circumnavigated or filled with incorruptible technology (in theory at least - you can break computer system, but you can't bribe it). Therefore I propose a new revolutionary war cry:
