I spoke to an anarcho primitivist and she told me that humans are hardwired to be egalitarian and it's natural for us to be altruistic and equal because she said all tribes and societies were equal and egalitarian. And said something about progress and stuff and that high level complex communities and societies are unnatural and against our nature.
So were all human societies back then before let's say agricultural societies arose egalitarian? And how egalitarian were they?
The person you were talking to was using arguments popularized by Yuval Noah Harari in his book Sapiens. The book is not well-regarded in anthropological and historical circles. See the post by u/CommodoreCoCo in this thread, which links to further discussions of the book and its arguments.
You might also be interested in a previous answer of mine on a similar subject.
In addition to the other responses, if you want a book-length treatment on this question then I can recommend The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber (posthumously, unfortunately) and David Wengrow. For example, in chapter 3 they turn their attention to some of the more ornate prehistoric burials as evidence of stratified 'hunter-gatherer' society:
Some of the earliest [findings] come from sites like Sunghir in northern Russia and Dolní Věstonice in the Moravian basin, south of Brno, and date from between 34,000 and 26,000 years ago. What we find here are not cemeteries but isolated burials of individuals or small groups, their bodies often placed in striking postures and decorated – in some cases, almost saturated – with ornaments. In the case of Sunghir that meant many thousands of beads, laboriously worked from mammoth ivory and fox teeth. . . .
Such findings have completely altered the specialist view of human societies in prehistory. The pendulum has swung so far away from the old notion of egalitarian bands that some archaeologists now argue that, thousands of years before the origins of farming, human societies were already divided along lines of status, class and inherited power. As we’ll see, this is highly unlikely, but the evidence these archaeologists point to is real enough: for instance, the extraordinary outlays of labour involved in making grave goods (10,000 work hours for the Sunghir beads alone, by some estimates); the highly advanced and standardized methods of production, possibly suggesting specialized craftspeople; or the way in which exotic, prestigious materials were transported from very distant locations; and, most suggestive of all, a few cases where such wealth was buried with children, maybe implying some kind of inherited status.
Note I've used 'hunter-gatherer' in quotation marks because, as they argue, the designation was invented to defend against critiques of colonialism, following the same lines as Social Darwinism. There's quite a lot of socio-economic diversity amongst 'hunter-gatherer' peoples which makes the farmer-forager distinction a false binary and frustrates easy simplifications such as your friend has adopted. Ian Keen, for example, alludes to many of these systems in "Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture" (A Journal of Social Anthropology and Comparative Sociology: Vol 31, 2021):
A number of conceptual schemes have sought to bridge the gap between foraging and farming by showing how associated techniques may overlap (e.g. Ford 1985; Harris 1989; Smith 2001). Other schemes provide categories for production systems that come somewhere between those of hunter-gatherers and farmers. These include the categories of ‘complex hunter-gatherers’ and ‘affluent hunter-gatherers’ (Lourandos 1980; Williams 1987; Keeley 1988; Zvelebil 1996; Smith 2001, 4; Sassaman 2004), and non-egalitarian hunter-gatherers in contrast with egalitarian hunter- gatherers (Kelly 1995, 302–303; Sassaman 2004, 233).
In the absence of a broader, deeper and more nuanced understanding of these societies then we won't be able to draw any longstanding or meaningful conclusions about how egalitarian or altruistic they are.