Fundamental Problem with Sociology
"Markovian process" is most commonly applied to evolution. It describes a system where each phase is determined in part by the previous system. In evolution, a stage where single-cellular life is dominant does not turn into birds. Further, random chance plays a major role. The moths in England that became black-winged did so because of the coal burning in industrial England, something they had no role in. There are theories that amphibians became predominant thanks to a random event, perhaps a prolonged drought that would make access to land more strategic.
How does this apply to society? It is very easy, looking at history, to say that hierarchy, domination, etc. is permanent, indeed even human nature. The many problems with this are obvious: There's no intrinsic evidence (say, genetic) to establish it; we all know from personal experience and cultural analysis that human can live under a great amount of institutions and cultures; the institutions we have precisely ENCOURAGE destructive, anti-social, etc. behavior, roles, decisions, and outlooks; etc. Further, to establish the point, the social evidence is necessarily restrictive: we only can get insight into about 10,000 years of the 100,000 or s years of human history, so we have no idea the cultures and the institutions that have passed away. But let's say that all of our history has indeed been hierarchical. Must this be because of human nature?
Suppose that one hierarchical group, maybe thanks to local resources, or a particularly large group, or some utilization of hierarchy, managed to gain success. Others followed. Given that quite a bit of modern civilization developed in Sumer and the Middle East/Africa more generally, this conclusion doesn't seem so limited. Also note that technology can change things. For a long time, nomadic groups would devastate hierarchical and stable groups.
The point is that we can't be sure about what institutions are best, or can be supported by humans, or what not, given that not all institutions are going to have been given a fair shake, that our understanding of history and the evidence we have available is contoured by that very hierarchy that self-selects future societies, and that one could imagine many living arrangements that humans might be able to support.