First I would like to thank you for actually engaging in a non-defensive way.

Second, I would like to point out some flaws I see in your argumentations:

On ruling class/"dependency hierarchy":no, there does not always need to be one. For a semantic example, it is perfectly possible to have no "dependency" in software systems (except the one to the underlying system, but this is not a power relationship). Closer to the subject, it is possible to structure systems such that there is no power concentration, "soft power" is effectively diffused and true consent (not necessarily concensus, just consent) is required to get anything done. Such systems still enable decision making to be delegated, but when push comes to shove, power is distributed and recalled easily. We see it in associations, we see it in anarchist social experiments, we see it in well designed teams and companies where employees have real leverage - such systems are often not as scalable yet, but they do generally perform better in terms of welfare and resilient - see the german company-union relationships which tend to be more resilient to economic downturns for example and generally treat their employees much better.

To blindly reassert "there is no other way" is to adopt as an axiom that is at best uncertain and at worst empirically wrong.

3rd, on pragmatism and the french, sure, pragmatically we can play that game while it exists, but the glory of the french revolution was not in it's pragmatic achieval of its goals (they failed after all, napoleon the post-metternich era reinstuted defacto monarchy) and but that it completely and radically did away with pragmatism and destroyed the old social order. So I'm surprised you would use it as an argument in a discussion about the inevitably of hierachy, if anything I would use it as an argument for the great good that can come from taking away power from old decision making structures.

4th, on game theory, I do my best to study game theory nowadays, and you can only prove what your assumptions allow you, so in this discussion it's out of bounds without a formal specification (I'm happy for references though if you can recommend good formalisations and studies of current political and economic systems).

5th, on the world collapsing, it is collapsing because our elite has so far not cared to save it despite the scientists warning them for decades, and its the populace and idealists (extinction rebellion et al) who are pushing for the radical solutions to save them - so again, I don't see why we should buy the argument of "oh no, actually, the elites need to be more powerful so they can save us".

Scaling and Growth at all costs without distributed power to alleviate the distributed ills has brought us here. So why should we not ask for solid proof before we give more power to a centralised few? Why should we assume a ruling class will survive the coming shifts? Why should we assume having a ruling class is inevitable when previous generations were told only the kings and royals had the divine grace to rule, that the plebs could never handle reading, women could never handle equality, colored would never be able to vote rationally?