Again, I must respectfully disagree. Every person has a certain amount of greed inside. After all, humans are a species that, if left alone, will only care for themselves, and, if in a group, they will only care for their own.
Put five people in a deserted island. They are starving, and are total strangers to each other. Would they fight to survive? Would they instantly collaborate in this situation? Or would they forage without disturbing each other? There is a probability of the three scenarios to occur. After all, humans will do what they believe it's best to survive. And even if they collaborate, there is a probability one of them will betray the group, if things go wrong.
I acknowledge that humans can be gentle, caring beings. It is also an instinct to be like that. However, they will not do so for a stranger (unless there's a stranger killed in the street, many would do the right thing and call 911). Humans are varied on their level of greed. There will never be a pure person, no matter how you think. Some humans are selfish, rotten beings. Others are very benevolent. And many are in the middle.
If humans were so noble as you suggest, then humanity's
entire history would take a 180 degree turn. Humans only care for their own, as it has been seen on ancient nations. The populace
supported, in one way or the other, conquests of their enemies. A definitive example of this is the Medieval Ages, where people thought that fighting in wars and being knights was honourable, when they killed other humans in wars and many looted and robbed the enemy for treasures and bounty. And even if they did not, many just fought for a higher status in society, which would give them vast resources, not sharing much with the rest.
In this situation, not only the populace cared for their own, but they were easily swayed by ruthless leaders and "valiant" warriors. Not thinking much, they believed and thought that it was honourable to fight for a tyrant, killing enemy humans in their path, and taking a higher status in society because you served the monarch.
People are only kind of noble now because the majority are subjugated in a stratified society, and, as I concede to your idea, people are not educated enough. While yes, we need that kind of order, the bottom class must take matters into their own hands, and they must demand that the existing elite to concede to the will of the people, or else, it is up to the people themselves to establish a new society, by force, if necessary. That way, we can ensure a fair rule for the people.
However, a classless society cannot be practical. As I've mentioned many times before, humans are greedy by nature. Eventually, someone will try to climb the social ladder, since not all humans are noble and good. Then, the left-wing dictatorships purge said people, all while establishing their own stratified society. Even in anarchism or anarcho-communism will people try to make such divisions. After all, not all people think like this hypothetical society does. In the end, this society will fall, and its successor will be a similar or identical one like before.
I only see a trend in humanity. Before, people were unorganized tribes and clans, incapable of accomplishing the leadership we have now, but, with technology advancing, the majority of people chose sedentary lives. Next, figures rise for their qualities, and they are seen as leaders. The ancient people think they can be the efficient steering wheel of their society, so they accept him or her to lead them. Eventually, in an anarchy, these figures will rise. It is a trend that I've seen for humanity that started long ago, when the idea of an organized civilization was first conceived in the ancient lands of Mesopotamia. Back then, people were nomadic and primitive, attacking others if they could for resources, all while caring for their own group.
The people must demand to be taught, if the keys of knowledge are held by the elite. Now, we have the internet, and being self-taught about the issues that we face as a people is not as hard to do as before. Now, since the democratic revolutions of old, not only do we have some keys to knowledge, we have earned many more keys with the internet.
A pure direct democracy and a pure anarchic system would both be impractical in today's society (except for the Swiss, and even then they are not a direct democracy, just that they have elements of it. They are, in actuality, a fair, representative democracy). Not only technology and society are not advanced enough,
our very own human nature makes it impossible.
Maybe the technology could arrive in the future, when we can conduct direct democracy. But, in the end, it is not possible to determine if human nature and human attitude would be sufficient for such an utopian society in the future. Thus, we require order, we require a
fair division of classes (we musn't forget about a fair meritocratic system, my friend), and we must rise up if fairness is violated by the elite, and, after the revolution, we must build a more efficient society that will ensure order and fairness, all while efficiently rewarding merit, as long as society is not disturbed negatively (tax the rich, damn it!). Direct democracy is a death trap for today's society, nothing else.
And, about the argument about phones for direct democracy, it holds no water. There is no way to guarantee that we will even have smartphones and computers for all, that we will have the technology forever, or if the resources are even enough. Resources on Earth are limited, my friend. Until we find some ultra-futuristic way of avoiding such catastrophy of ending the world's resources, we keep using them. As such, there is no true guarantee that this will last forever.