The new ideology, is one which You essayed as the one resulting as a synthesis: the liberal democracy, as the product of the thesis , extreme liberalism, and extreme authorotiarinism. I do not think, that was the exact label, but it was close to it. The transendence of this ideology, based on the diialectic, depends on this, and post modern semiologies, as in Pierce and Seissure, may be set against the at last formally, as well.
In semiology, might as well start with that, the sign and the signal both depend on the object, in this case ,it is the object of the signal, to transmit the sign to the receptor, so, the object, is effected by the sign,(the puported use) and the receptor. The receptor alos effects the object, (or meaning)–meaning is both, desribed as the ‘thing’ represented, and the idea, which is interpreted.
This is also a kind of meta-dialectic, inasmuch as the evolving dialectic which occupies Sloterdijk mind, that is, of gross econo-political processes.
Whem these two types are again fom a third triad, a new ideology may be conceived. this is what i meant, by the bubble vs the foam, the foam consisting of many more, smaller semiological units.
I am intrigued by this thinker, and Eric suggested look into it, and this is but an initial view i have. Always like to start with the basics, and work upwards, and not the other way around, for the simple reason, that , to give You an analogy, I need to look at the trunk before i can try to understand the branches. After that, perhaps,I may take the liberty to see, if i can learn of the roots.
That a new ideology is sought is implicit in Your statement, that the dialectic is alive, but it is, a tree in the winter, it is barren, and thatis why i think that the questions regarding the dynamics involved are especially relevant. At the moment, such trrms as extreme liberalism a d extreme authoritarianism, do not, or have not reduced the meaning of the signs to the level,where another East German Philopher claimed of the emergence of the one dimensional man. In other words, we are not at the point of flat lining yet, and that is why, i do not think the terms can, at this time dress up the bare ideals into a post modern dress.
Extreme liberalism is very vague, and we may think that, the majority of private semiology which is indicated is still balanced by conservative views.
By dynamics, i mean questions such as, what causes bubbles on one jand foam on another? Is the dynamic mostly of historical-causitive, or, whther it is caused by theseeking for identification and attention, another interesting idea he brings up.
Mind you, i am only getting my feet wet in this regard, but i thought it would be of some interest to bring these and other peliminaries out, before wading into the actual causation, and possible objectives, if any.
The effect on Fukiama’s views are relevant here, since his notions of the end of history depend to a large extent to a diminishing ideological relevance, brought on largerly by the demise of the EAST-WEST geopolitical stance. That stance, was the result of the prior stance whose dynamic was changed by WW1 & WW2. Also the new liberal democracy may mirror ceetain features of the prior national socialism, which was the synthetic product of pure capitalism and socialism. What seems to be going on, is the change of the dress, with the semiologies trailing in a foam like separatism, awaiting a kind of generic unification, which can foam a new semiology, freforming a larger bubble. Modernity can offer more libralism to be sure, as the economic bubble gets to be inflated.