Winners and Losers

In this season of winners and losers, I’ve been thinking alot about dominance and submission. Why is this dyad the organizing principal of the human condition? In our relationships with our parents, our children, our lovers, our siblings, our friends, colleagues, co-workers, electoral opponents, there are always top dogs and underdogs. Humans are composed of leaders and followers, passive receptors and active aggressors, predators and prey, and the fight or flight impulse (advance and retreat) is hardwired into our biochemistry. The balance between the two (or lack thereof) manifests differently in each individual, but in every relationship, someone is always lion and someone is the lamb. Why is that?
The Marxist wanted to believe that the lion and the lamb could lie down together in a utopia of communal cooperation; from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. See how well that worked out. Rather than lions lying down with lambs, the dogs ate the dogs, and it wasn’t pretty. I hear that the “greatest generation” shared a common purpose during WWII. Perhaps shared sacrifice is the key, but even then there were black marketers and war profiteers. Why do so many humans naturally default to “me and mine” rather than “us and ours?”
For one weekend each year, the campout community generates a sense of “us and ours." We each contribute according to our ability and take according to our need. Is there some way to sustain that in our every day lives?