Both Lenin and Gramsci believed that ideologies were sets of ideas that served the interest of a given social class, not necessarily the ruling class. Therefore the proletariat could, and should, develop their own ideology. For Lenin this was embodied by the Vanguard Party, the primary purpose of which was to instil a revolutionary socialist consciousness (or ideology) amongst the people, through the state apparatus, before eventually withering away when this ideology had been accepted. It is easy to see Althuser's retrospective criticisms of the use of such apparatus due to the ideological nature of such means, and indeed the failure of the Soviet State to wither away.

Antonio Gramsci, an influential Italian Communist, believed ideology was essential to achieve workers unity, "The subordinate classes, he [Gramsci] said, must acquire consciousness of their own existence and their own strength." (Pozzolini, 1970), otherwise the subordinate classes (or proletariat) would remain victims of 'divide and rule', that is the ruling classes, whilst smaller in number, subscribe to a coherent ideology, whilst the proletarian masses without an ideology lie divided, and therefore easier to rule.

It is not just Marxist thinkers that have strong views on ideology. Liberal writers such as Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipsett and Francis Fukuyama, amongst others, have advanced theories on ideology that presuppose a narrow view of the term. The pejorative context in which liberals often use ideology is to describe theories that they perceive as extremist, for instance fascism or communism.

It is in this context that Daniel Bell felt he could confidently proclaim the 'End of Ideology' in 1960. The post-war political climate in the Western world, where the capitalist parties appeared to accept the welfare state and the socialist parties embraced market economics, ushered in an era of consensus politics, whilst 'extremist' ideas suffered a decline in popularity. Even a flood of criticism and historical events such as the insurrection and the revival in Marxism of the late 60s, the return of fascism in the 70s, and the resurgence of free market economics in the 80s did not deter Bell, and in 1988 a revised edition of his book was published containing an 'afterword' in which, "Bell argues, not entirely convincingly, that the committed radicalism of the 1960s did not disprove his thesis." (Goodwin, 1992).

Another exponent of the 'end of ideology' theory is S.M. Lipsett, who in the final chapter of his book Political Man (1960) declares that the, "fundamental political problems of the Industrial Revolution have been solved" (Lipsett, 1960), and as a result, "The democratic class struggle will continue, but it will be a fight without ideologies, without red flags, without May day parades" (Lipsett, 1960). This comparison of ideologies with red flags exposes Lipsett's narrow view of ideology being simply a synonym for socialism. A Marxist would argue that Lipsett appears to have an almost idealistic view of political culture if he truly believes that all the 'problems of the Industrial Revolution have been solved', as left-wing thought would totally reject this notion.

Fukuyama's views are expressed in his article 'The End of History' (1989), as the author, a powerful influence in the American Government's policy making unit, delivers a glowing appraisal of Western liberal democracy. He cites modern America as the perfect example of a classless society, although millions of low paid or unemployed Americans would doubtless love to argue. Fukuyama's outlook differs from that of Bell in that instead of dismissing political ideas as irrelevant , he believes that, "one particular set of ideas, Western Liberalism, has triumphed over all its rivals... By the 'end of history', Fukuyama means that the history of ideas has ended, and with it fundamental ideological debate." (Heywood, 1992).

Fukuyama has met widespread and often forceful criticism of his ideas from a variety of sources, including Bell, who dismissed it as the 'beginning of nonsense'. Goodwin points out that it fails as political theory, whilst Heywood maintains that, "Ideological conflict and debate are unlikely to end in the late Twentieth century with the ultimate worldwide triumph of liberalism, any more than they did with the inevitable victory of socialism widely predicted in the late Nineteenth century." (Heywood, 1992).

However, perhaps the most voracious critic of the entire 'end of ideology' debate is Herbert Marcuse, often considered to be a radical Marxist thinker, who maintains that contemporary society is at a very advanced level of ideology, "This absorption of ideology into reality does not, however, signify the 'end of ideology'. On the contrary, in a specific sense, advanced industrial society is more ideological than its predecessor, inasmuch as today the ideology is in the process of production itself." (Marcuse, 1968). Marcuse dismisses Bell's argument by illustrating how ideology has not in fact ended, but one particular ideology has come to dominate. However, where Fukuyama celebrates the triumph of liberalism as almost 'common-sense', this is in direct opposition to Marcuse's assault on the domination of one ideology. For Marcuse, this domination is perpetuated by the increasing affluence of the working classes, and by the growth of bureaucracy, "At its most advanced stage, domination functions as administration." (Marcuse, 1968).