The ultimate dilemma is the proper balance between taxation and welfare. The core of economic ideology is based on it. The alternatives cover the whole spectrum, from no welfare at all to the extreme punishment of wealth and its redistribution. Economics will remain an ideology until this dilemma is resolved.
Western thought is still fundamentally based on traditional British idealism despite the adoption of analytical philosophy, which is now being used as a tool for making precise and logical arguments that incorporate incomprehensible and unverified assumptions, similar to good old scholasticism. On the other side lurks materialism (mainly dialectic). This has been the clash of the early 1900s that lead to the developments of two different economic philosophies and a bastardization in the middle called Socialism, mainly developed in countries with a will to stay neutral and out of this nonsense game, like Sweden for example.
Indeed, (Western) Economics is mostly ideology and behind it hides a will for control (people, resources, ideas, etc.) But to me saying that everything is degree of complexity is also absurd and the basis of the alternative, dialectical materialism (if you wish call it communism), is also absurd as I believe there is something bigger than natural selection and something bigger than rational expectations. The new Economics that will emerge in the future will be based on ethical and self-evident principles that will attempt to distribute resources according to some “golden rule” that will provide the optimum balance between the right to survive and have access to basic facilities and services and the right to be rewarded for contributing to the increase of output. We are far away from establishing some system of this sort and it may take a few more wars until we are forced to accept it and reject the extremes.
Redistributing wealth via high taxation is an absurd idea because it is a form of punishment of wealth-creation but at the same time a welfare system that provides everything to unemployed (I exclude the incapable because those should be taken care of in all systems) is a way of rewarding the lazy. Where do you draw the line and how do you convince politicians not to take advantage of this dilemma? Before we attack economic ideology, maybe we should first solve this problem.