I honestly think it has to do with the level of "righteousness" that a society has, that has greater influence upon the prosperity of a people than their ideology.

Communism, for example, really isn't all that evil, except for the compulsory/violent establishment ideology that has been put upon it as a way to make it pragmatic. The problem with the idea of communes is that they don't take into account the nature of man.

Capitalism is not much better than communism, and is subject to (everyday we see it) serious exploitation as the people the ideology serves, start to serve themselves. (You can tell that I am not a huge fan of Ayn Rand's idea that selfishness is a virtue. )

The Nephites were the best example of this... ironically we know relatively little about the mechanics of their government, or how votes were cast, though we do get a "macroscale" type look at now it was abused in times of wickedness, and preserved them and brought about prosperity in times when the people were righteous.

--Ray

PS> That said, i think there are ideologies that are more difficult to exploit, and those which preserve personal liberties and distribute responsibility across a large spectrum of social voices, in my view, are more virtuous and more robust... because one person cannot bring upon the whole society as much destruction. King Mosiah made a case for this in his sermon about how it is not reasonable to have a king. 

Ray,

If capitalism does take human nature into account, and communism/socialism does not, is it really tenable to assert one is "not much better" than the other?

Ayn Rand was a very interesting woman, but a poor example of virtue. It is an empirical fact that where liberty prevails, charity follows. Adam Smith is one of the earliest, and still the best, exponent of the free enterprise system...if one must choose a figurehead for capitalism. 

Exploitation is a function of human nature, not a function of government. Well intentioned people could avoid exploitation regardless of how they are organized, and exploitive individuals will take advantage irrespective of safeguards government might have in place. It seems the test of a perfect ideology would be it's responsiveness to preservation of liberty, not the elimination of an individuals right to abuse that freedom. The exercise of "perfect" agency is messy. I expect a "perfect" ideology to be, likewise, messy

I believe there is an ideology that meets this test, but for a moment let's take another tack. If an ideology is a "body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class or culture.", what must, of necessity, not be an element in the optimal idea set?   

Noel: I think you have to look at the virtues of the society and weigh them on what you value. I don't think there's a perfect ideology to fit all people, because human nature and personal righteousness varies so much.

--Ray

How about the Nephites after Christ appeared to them?  Would you say that the way they lived was a perfect ideology?  Not that we know all that many details, but presumably they voted on leaders and laws and such.  And they maintained it for a long, long time because they were righteous and unselfish. 

After the Second Coming, we'll live under Christ's government.  I have an impression that we'll have leaders and representatives, but I don't know that for certain.  It's to last 1,000 years and will take righteousness and unselfishness to maintain.  I don't know that it would be political in the sense that we have politics, now, though.  And it seems to be hard for humans to maintain a good government for all that long--we being imperfect and all.

This probably doesn't address your question very well, noel, but it's just some thoughts I had.