In statist societies, the political engine has two cylinders. The labels and the mechanism may vary, but the basics are the same.
We can stipulate two political classes, the rich and the poor, otherwise known as the conservatives and the liberals. The conservatives want to conserve their money, and the liberals want to liberate it.
The class that controls the state controls a huge flow of money. They use it to enrich themselves, of course.
If the rich are in control, they take the money creating a whole bunch of newly poor people. When enough poor people are created, they take control of the government, perhaps by elections, perhaps by revolution, perhaps by just replacing, or bribing a lot of mid-level bureaucrats.
When the poor are in control, they take the money. That creates a bunch of newly rich people who start to think about keeping what they have. The power of the rich increases, and they take over the government. As the rate of taxation increases, this process takes less and less time, and the the society becomes turbulent.
In non-statist, or so-called "primitive" societies, there is no central pool of wealth. All assets are in private hands. This does not mean the absence of conflict, but it does reduce it. I would be interested to know if there is any data on the stability of "primitive" societies?