Once again, I'll hoist my flag as a techno-optimist-lite here.

If we assume that "the elite" in society #1 have the de facto power and make the decisions, then I think it is near-impossible to differentiate between the elite and the politicians.  (The days of blue-collar politicians of the labour movement holding sway over major parties and at odds with "evil capitalists" is long-gone.)  After all, the elite still managed to survive through the post-war boom when income inequality fell, and estate taxes and marginal tax rates were (in general across the West) at their highest.  I think the idea that the elite will inevitably be crushed by higher tax rates is not borne out by historical examples.

Secondly, a high-tax welfare (redistributive) state is not automatically synonymous with "the state being the only meaningful employer".  Similarly, the state being a major employer is not automatically synonymous with a command economy.  It is entirely conceivable for a high-taxing welfare state, with or without significant regulation, to have an anaemic public service sector - instead contracting out to private companies.  One example, the German or Canadian models of health care: the government provides the rules, the playing field, and a significant proportion of the funding, but private businesses are in competition to provide those services.  Alternatively, Australia has a long tradition of government providers and private-owned providers competing to offer education, health, transport, communication, and banking services.

Finally, a strong government and a free media are not mutually exclusive.  I know that there can be an American perception that the only free media is privately owned.  Speaking as an Australian (and I suspect the UK is similar), we have broadcast media where private providers are in competition with government providers.  There seem to be many more checks and balances around providing fair, balanced, and quality information within the government broadcasters than the private broadcasters (consider the tribalism and partisanism that has grown over the last generation or two in the US media market).  In Australia and the UK broadcast media, as with the businesses above, the day-to-day decisions of the government-owned entities are explicitly kept at arms' distance from the current politicians of the day - they are more easily considered to be "government-owned but community-run" than as mouthpieces for the government of the day.

Now none of this is to have a contest about which way is better.  I just mention these examples as reasons why I can easily imaging the survival, and flourishing, of an educated and free populace in the setting of a post-scarcity economy.