I claim that in every human group a small percentage of individuals are aggrandizers or those who have the drive to dominate others. But domination was not possible until a material base allowed the production of a storable-stealable-surplus. Only then did society begin to evolve complex structures that allowed a few to dominate the many. Such domination was the result of social construction, not biology. Presumably the biological drive was always there in primates, hominids and the humans of the Paleolithic but political domination did not come about until humans fell into an environment that provided them with a storable-stealable-surplus naturally (the rich salmon run rivers of the Northwest Coast, for example] or when they were able to domesticate plants and animals. Therefore, we cannot say that social stratification is the result of primate aggressive tendencies (McKenna, James J. 1983. Primate aggression and evolution: An overview of sociobiological and anthropological perspectives. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law 11:2:105-130). It is, rather, due to the fact that some especially aggressive and acquisitive individuals throughout history have constructed rule structures allowing them privileged access to the storable-stealable-surplus or material base that produces that surplus and have used that to manufacture a power base from which the élite few could dominate the many. Both in the past and also today individuals with the drive and capacity to dominate have created, sought or inherited such power bases. They were/are aggressive individuals whose cognitive/analytic skills permitted them to correctly assess when, to what degree and how aggression could be used to dominate others. Present-day aggressiveness, acquisitiveness and institutions of domination cannot be blamed on our hominid ancestors.