@Putin33 By "challenger to liberalism" do you mean "opponent" or "more worthy goal"?

"Do you agree that there are no real challengers to liberalism?"

Interesting question. How are we defining challengers here? Like semck said, if we look around the world I'm certain we can find several regional strongholds for decidedly illiberal ideologies. I think the primary reason liberal democracy is so dominant in the world today is because economic productivity and military might is overwhelmingly concentrated in liberal-democratic states (although the former is certainly shifting due to globalization).

Of course on some level they inform each other - for example, liberal democracy likely has a disproportionate concentration of economic productivity because it encourages that productivity as a consequence of the values it defends. Maybe in that respect there can't be any long-term challengers.

I dunno, I tend to be skeptical of any non-obvious assertions in the moment of entering a post-anything age. The Soviet Union still existed 25 years ago, after all; it seems awfully premature to declare liberal democracy an eternal champion. So I'm inclined to say no. But it certainly is a dominant paradigm right now and perhaps the most dominant paradigm in world history to this moment.

I mean a competing ideology that claims to achieve a higher form of society than liberalism, that is likely to rival liberalism in the number of adherents. Fukuyama dismissed Islamic radicalism (or whatever term it is called) because it's appeal is geographically limited to the Islamic countries. No country that isn't devoutly Muslim considers political Islam to be a preferable way to run their country.

So something with a more global/universal appeal than liberalism that can realistically claim competitive numbers of adherents?

Probably need to constrain this temporally. Which almost by default writes off Fukuyama's argument... even if liberalism is dominant today it's very hard to imagine it stays so dominant for my lifetime, let alone forever.

But in the present moment, yeah, we're in a liberal democratic world with some contained, regional pockets of resistance. Hard to argue otherwise.

@Putin33 The others have chimed in, under what circumstances do you think that an ideology should be abandoned?

I think it's clear that there are no other competitors. What's less clear to me is that liberalism itself genuinely deserves that mantle, either. True, every country pays lip service to it. But quite a few countries appear to be in states of indefinite failure at implementing it. What if liberalism only appears global because it is the consensus ideology among the richest, most powerful nations, and the rest of the world is basically going to keep doing its thing while pretending, because that's what you do for the powerful countries?

I'm not actually arguing that's the case -- I lack the requisite expertise. I'm just highlighting the possibility.

When the goals the ideology sets out to achieve are either no longer achievable or one no longer finds the goals desirable.

I would additionally note that "liberalism" itself is really the unhappy marriage of distinct strands that were previously competing ideologies, and really still are; and it's unclear whether it will ultimately survive the tension.

Agree with semck. Most liberal democracies are rapidly losing their liberalism and the democratic value. Perhaps a more apt term would be liberal capitalist, which I think are the two competing ideologies semck refers to.

Also, is the goal of every ideology not simply: justice?

Or more accurately: creating a (more) just society.

I think different ideologies have different ideas of what justice actually is, TMOW. But presumably yes.

I think whether countries succeed or not at meeting the goal is less relevant than whether they share the goal. It's a possibility they're all pretending but the fact that they haven't taken up an alternative course speaks to the universal influence of liberalism.

I think an ideology that promised a higher form of society than liberalism would be met with skepticism regarding it's ability to deliver on it's promises, and would not gain a large number of adherents. People are understandably wary of the offer of Utopia. Strangers with candy.

Sorry I should have clarified what I meant by liberalism. By liberalism I mean the acceptance of 1) market economies; 2) parliamentary government with alternating governing parties; and 3) 'constitutionalism' or 'rule of law'.

The marriage Semck speaks of I imagine is the marriage of social democracy (which less readily accepted the market) and old social conservativism (which less readily accepted parliamentary democracy). But I tend to think both of these 'strands' have more or less been neutered over time.

But even the US doesn't have a parliamentary system, Putin. Isn't that a little narrow?

They are wary if the current system is more or less keeping them fed with candy so that the stranger's offer is not compelling. If the system they live in doesn't work or is in crisis then they will receptive to new ideas.

By parliamentary I mean what is typically referred to as 'democratic'. Elected government wielding authority with power diffused within a legislature. The details (whether the executive is independent of said legislature or not) are not important.

So does the lack of receptivity to new ideas indicate that the current liberal systems are working? Does the receptivity toward liberalism in formerly non-liberal countries indicate that their pre-liberal systems were not working?

For at least a politically relevant majority, it seems the answer is yes to both questions.

OK, sorry for the confusion there.

Okay, so I see the current conversation, but before I enter that I would like to cover all the
previous questions, starting with the OP.

"What do you folks think of ideology?" I believe an ideology is a persons way of expressing their values through their "ideal world", which is expressed in various ways.

"Should everyone have one?" Point is moot due to..

"Does everyone have one without knowing it?" So long as that person is (or was) part of some civilization or community, yes.

"Should a person be ideologically consistent?" Depends on what you mean. If you mean that a person's ideology should match up with their values, that is inherent due to connect. However, if you mean their ideology itself should be consistent, then yes, to a fault, as exceptions to rules may seem inconsistent unless you apply them to the person's core values. And thirdly, if you mean their actions should be consistent with their ideology, the answer is yes, if they want to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

"Are some ideologies more correct than others?" Well, since an ideology is basically a person's "ideal world" i.m.o then technically none is truly more correct, as anything different than your ideology would be incorrect. However, some ideologies are in fact, much more effective in practice than others (like say democracy over anarchy). After all, if this were not true, then we would have many more popular ideologies than the ones were currently have.

"How does one discern a correct ideology from an incorrect ideology?"
Through research and experimentation. After all, it is best to look at the past to research an ideology, and the only way to truly know how it is in practice is to practice it (like numerous "utopian" societies that have died out) on a larger scale. Ultimately, the most effective/correct ideologies will find their way through to popularity and widespread implementation.

"How are conflicts between ideologies to be resolved?"
Like Putin said, with politics (debate) or violence (war). No matter what you do, one of those two will be used eventually to settle the dispute.

"Under what circumstance should one abandon an ideology?"
When it is shown/proven to be ineffective in practice or inconsistent with your values, actions or itself.

"Do you agree that there are no real challengers to liberalism?"
Well given your definition of liberalism, I would have to say yes, in a way. While numerous systems are falling to democracy and market economies (i.e communism), I would say the biggest challenger to liberalism is "corporatism". To define corporatism: "the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction". After all the basis of democracy is "rule by the people", but by and by the U.S (at least) is moving toward rule by special interest groups, specifically corporations. If this were not the case there would not be so many corporate lobbyists near Congress.

Hopefully this does not x-post with too many people.

Hmm, when I think of corporatism I think of Germany, Sweden, Mexico (under the PRI) and Japan. You have your unified blocs representing various sectors - labor, capital, farmers, etc, and they negotiate with each other more or less cooperatively, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model of competition between the sectors. It is fully compatible with democracy although I think the model is falling by the way side. I suppose corporatism makes people think of oligarchic rule by business enterprise corporations with other sectors not having any 'corporate' power, but that's not what it's been taken to mean elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism

As to whether corporatism as you define it is a challenger, I'm not sure. I don't think many people believe that business enterprises should completely supplant democratic and legal institutions. It's more or less a description of a pathology rather than an alternative ideology anybody believes in.

"As to whether corporatism as you define it is a challenger, I'm not sure. I don't think many people believe that business enterprises should completely supplant democratic and legal institutions. It's more or less a description of a pathology rather than an alternative ideology anybody believes in."

While I will definitely agree that corporatism (my definition, not social corporatism) is not a challenge in popularity (after all it is mostly people high in the corporate world who agree with the ideology), it is in practice. While you can say that ultimately it is the masses that decide who gets elected, it is often hard for people to know your name without the help of special interest groups who give large amounts of money. Even after elections, you can not deny the influence of lobbies (though not all are those of corporations) and other groups influencing bills more than the will of the people representatives are supposed to represent.

"What do you folks think of ideology?" To conform blindly to a 'main' ideology is silly, but everyone has their own ideology, which is how they determine their views on what should/should not be done.

"Should everyone have one?" Everyone has one, but they should also be aware of this, so they can see why they have the ideology they do, and inspect it for rational consistency.

"Does everyone have one without knowing it?" Do they ever think something 'ought' to be a certain way, or people 'ought' to act in a certain way? Then yes.

"Should a person be ideologically consistent?" Yes, generally they should, if we are to take their values and ideology seriously. However, there is the caveat that some ideas are rather complicated, and can appear to be potentially inconsistent without necessarily being so.

"Are some ideologies more correct than others?" Obviously some are more correct than others, and it's wishy washy and nonsensical to argue otherwise. If an ideology is logically inconsistent with itself than it is less correct than an ideology that is not. Obviously they are varying degress of logical inconsistencies. It's interesting that so many people here think that ideologies are not more correct than others - I didn't know everyone was a moral relativist that ultimately only thinks liberalism/socialism is only better than nazism on a whim.

"How does one discern a correct ideology from an incorrect ideology?" This is best discerned rationally, not empirically. It is fundamentally (generally) an ethical question. Something is not 'correct' based on being implemented widely - what a ludicrous proposition.

"How are conflicts between ideologies to be resolved?"
By Gramsci's two types of war - of position and manouvre

"Under what circumstance should one abandon an ideology?"
When it is seen to be logically inconsistent.

"Do you agree that there are no real challengers to liberalism?"
I don't get this question, really. The end of history is a load of bullshit, and liberalism will not be around until the end of man (assuming man does not die out too soon). In terms of logical consistency there are better ideologies. Liberalism has cultural hegemony at the moment, and is dominant, but not for reasons of theoretical strength. When I say liberalism I mean to include all its forms, and really, capitalism - including the third way and weak 'social democrats'. At the moment there is no strong challenger to liberalism in the west (in the war for cultural hegemony), but that can always change, even if it is not obvious or easy.

Socrates,

Do you think Marxism will make a come-back as a challenger to liberalism? Or perhaps even Fascism?

@Socrates - is the "theoretical strength" of an ideology more important than how well adapted it is to function in the world, especially if those adaptations are contradictory? I'm trying to avoid mentioning an "intelligent design" vs. "evolution" metaphor, but I have failed.

@ Putin, I think that both of them may reasonably assumed to one day challenge liberalism again, even if it is under a slightly different guise. Marxism especially.

@tendmote, an ideology that cannot function in the real world is, in my opinion, an ideology without much theoretical strength.

@Putin: Not addressed to me, but it's another interesting question so I'm taking a crack at it :)

Fascism is already making a small comeback in some pockets of Europe, and if Europe's economic crisis and decline continues it's not difficult to envision it regaining some of its former infamy as a viable threat to liberalism. I suspect this is "just a phase" if you will, an outlet for frustrations with the liberal-democratic regime in some states, and that sometime in the next decade the European economy will recover and fascism will no longer have any serious sway.

Marxism is robust enough as an ideology to be capable of rebirth as a major challenger to liberalism, but it's hard to pinpoint where or when that might occur. It seems rather dead as a major political force at the present time. But for the same reason that it's shortsighted for someone to declare a post-ideological era of eternal liberal-democratic dominance, it's shortsighted for someone to declare Marxism dead and buried forever. If monarchism can still be an accepted system of governance anywhere on the globe in the 21st century, I don't see why Marxism can't be an accepted system of ideology in the future.