The political-philosophies tend to be wishful-utopia, and/or "me-too" grabs-slogans. They may know their enemies, but they do not know themselves. No firm framework.
Textbooks on politics, remind that, even the word "democracies" may get abused, and turn meaningless as a term, when/if we attempt to infer the word from the real-world representation examples, and with the problems which existed in 2002. To Vote, in an Ex-state.
Some ideologies make guesses - although unsupportable by evidence. Although liberalism, communism, and/or (individual) anarchy, may all claim to follow the human-reality, they may diverge, at some point.
e.g: Communism. It ignores jealousy, greedy-people, and neglect even a wish to keep what your father had painted - if other people want them, too. It assumes some people, or all people, intrinsically would want to work, and contribute, and next, consume "only what they need."
Does that assume seize-jealousy would stop at an upper limit, when everybody is "equal?" That may avoid a license-thief, but with no accumulation of wealth, only the immediate-features may attract attention. How would we eliminate jealousy, when only a few people are the most humorous, the most handsome/beautiful, etc? That only shifts the balance. The "less equal" may expect equality, there, too. Would beautiful women, need to "serve" all the people? Where does jealousy stop, otherwise?
Mr. Marx himself, was with fine words, to let himself invited, when people gathered. That is an example of an immediate-feature, to let socialize with.
Some of those who hail a static society, an extremist with a claim to follow the "traditions" (essentially, a bigoted paternal-worship) as ideal, then may go on to some "pragmatic," tyrannical pecking-order, where anything-goes-if-the-leadership-said-it system. A central-authority, may dominate. i.e: As with freedom, the "traditionalism" may be only lieful slogans, if it only means some people will get the central-power. That we avoid, with R-world. Any rule may remain, with the intricacies as it was, since millenia. I offer R-world only as a recipe, with them - Islam, and its farz & meditation.
The Soviet-socialism, that giant state-machinery was started, as a "transitional" state, to move towards their "ideal" of communism - if that was. That never turned in. There was the people, as separate than the party elite. People do know the luxury hotels, in the eastern ("socialist") block countries, which also served their comrades, who wrote propaganda to promote those "socialist" states, in the press, in the western (free-market) world. All at the same time, the majority of their people, would live at yokes, with a low standard of living.
The news items, about the "transitional" neo-conservatism in the USA (and similar, elsewhere), suggests a similar symptom. That tips (as people object), a shift of monopolies to corporations - with privatizations, or presidential-authority.
While the limbo lingers, some people grab state-treasures, while some people crave a share of that same - which were collected, in the name of the people, with taxes, etc.
A liberal thinker, Hayek (in an interview, that I found within my newspaper-clips, from 1980s), was expecting (i.e: hoping for) utopias, to improve liberalism. The otherwise let-people-do proponent, were to expect an utopia?
If we expand the phrase "dream for a viable utopia," with the point that, an "utopia" is not a first-order dream that you could put into practice directly, the way an engineer dreams a car-model, it is certain that the phrase means "to dream, to dream, of an alternative." i.e: He hoped for a cozy idea, to play/philosophize with, even if it were not realistic, yet.
That is surely better than hopelesssness. But I think, we are there, for real, with R-world. I leave the rest at their corners. Move forward, to freedom.
Except for Islam, the finest resemblence to R-world, is a free-market-economy with, a liberal democracy, and with compromises to minorities (to preserve their faith/culture).