It's hard to say how much economic relations condition social relations, or the opposite (social relations enable some people to benefit from other economically). I don't thing that the economy should even be regarded as a separate "realm" from social relations. It's one portion of it.
Hm... Not sure how to take this...
Was intended as a compliment
The will of individuals to specifically rule over others is not natural, but conditional. I might trace this occurrence to scarcity mentality in a post-scarcity situation, which has arguably been the case since the advent of agriculture.
I would
like to agree with you in this, but I cannot. I've seen how people take a liking to "lead", to occupy decision-making positions, positions of power. Not all people, some actively avoid it, but some others like it,
discover they like it. It seems to me that it was there, the potential to enjoy power, it's just discovered, not learned. But that leads us to the age-old innate vs learned discussions... And I may be wrong.
I think we may have a somewhat different definition of a liberal, but the idea you describe is a common one for sure. I think it makes more sense to do what you call impossible, and to educate each and every person to be responsible for the recognition and destruction of hierarchy. Now obviously somebody could call this impractical, but Vanguardism (the alternative) has its own drawbacks. The realistic application of a universal education of the population in class consciousness would probably result in the creation of something much larger than a Vanguard but which functions similarly. A horizontal network of community protectors, unofficial but responsible and willing to protect their people from the menace of hierarchy.
Education has a problem, one I've best seen explained in a little book about propaganda I'll recommend to anyone, old though it is, Jacques Ellul's
Propaganda. It comes from a conservative perspective, from a philosopher priest who decries the increasing reach the modern state developed (and perhaps romanticizes what existed before, propaganda is not an invention of the modern state). But he offered me two brilliant insights: the better informed citizens become more vulnerable to manipulation, through the very information they get used to consuming, and complex societies force people to take shortcuts, rely on prejudices and on unverified information, in order to just lead their lives.
Out societies suffer from the problems caused by increased complexity. They are not going away, unless we were to give up many of the trappings of civilization. Consider: Facebook and Google were optional, yet people voluntarily enrolled in them... because it was convenient, and they came to believe that in the complex society they live in they need to use this "tools" where people are the product. Voluntary embrace of an increase in complexity, gradual increase in exposure to propaganda, perceived need for propaganda (always called "information" by its peddlers).
Can people be educated to refuse these increases in complexity that lead them to loss of control over their own lives? They perceive it as an
increase in control for them (easy communication! information! news! organization!). Education itself is increasingly delivered through this infrastructure, and indeed we're here talking in a kind of "social network" (a web forum).
Have you considered that education may have been the cause of power inequalities, or at least a necessary tool for its increase, and can it really become a tool for its decrease? Conservatives (in the traditional political meaning of the word), or course, will say no: they would rather turn the clock backwards and return to a "simpler world". Progressives usually say yes. As a skeptical, I fear I cannot believe either answer. I would like to have a solution to this, but do not. Still hope for one...
...Well this is obviously difficult in the goalposts you establish, simply because whenever these ideas are applied they're swiftly attacked from all sides by an onslaught of state and corporate violence, so the closest answer in modern history I can give is probably the EZLN-protected territory in Chiapas.
However, a more unconventional answer would be that the majority of human history has seen a largely non-hierarchical social organization over most (or all) of the population. Agriculture has only existed for a few thousand years, and before that there was no state or property. There were other social structures, such as gender and limited systems of spirituality, but these typically served a very specific and limited purpose and did not develop to become the hierarchies we know of them today (patriarchy and religion, respectively) until the agricultural revolution.
It is curious that in this you are being a "conservative". Your solution is going back to a simpler world. The mostly agricultural village system of Chiapas. The appeal of the pre-historic era of mankind, before the most essential or out tools of education (and propaganda!), such as writing, were invented. But this cannot work with out population densities in the big cities, there is no turning back the clock of complexity there, unless some 9/10ths of the population were to die.
My own favoured "solution" is a mere improvement, an amelioration of the problems that have grown over the past century: keep polities small and democracy near to the people. Bear the "burden" of "losses of economic efficiency" associated with reimposing borders, financial controls, trade barriers, different legislations in different geographical territories. Ditch the cult of efficiency, so many times a lie anyway.
And even this limited programme, I despair of ever having enough followers to be applied. I witness a disaster in the making in Europe, and so few willing to oppose it... we have grown in number in recent years, but' there's a lot to be done to stop and revet that disaster. Limited goals are all I can hope fighting for.
Apologies for going off-topic. Relevant to this thread: I'll say that in a small polity a rotten politician will be more likely to fear backlash from the citizens. Impeaching someone no longer seems a big endeavor, but rather something attainable. Hell, slapping the piece of clap when you find him in the street may even become possible too! Icelanders seemed to be able to easily evict governments.
