All philosophies have sought to describe societies, which are stable and produce happiness for the people.
The key question is the relationship of the society and the individual. The goal is to guarantee stability and happiness at the same time.
Utopian philosophies, including Marxism, have placed the society first, and relegated an ant's role for the individual. Socialism as well as Plato's Republic, Thomas Moore's Utopia, and Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes are Odes to the Ant Hill. These writers deluded themselves that their conceptions will provide for happiness, when even brief examination of their societies reveal individuals without rights or choices. Such people cannot be happy. These societies are dictatorships of one form or another.
John Locke started his consideration of the perfect society from the level of an individual. What are his Natural rights? By guaranteeing the rights of the individual he built up a conception of a happy society.
As Western democracies show, the 'pursuit of happiness' is not enough to make a stale society. There are always those who fail. Kind-hearted folks see that as an intolerable problem. They want everybody in the society to be happy, which is of course impossible. However much material and other benefits selfish individuality, closely connected with capitalism has brought it is not adequate to address a man's innate desire for universal happiness. This is an emotional drive, and there is no good emotional explanation that would allow one to accept inequality.
So, here's the dilemma. Those who start with consideration of society (top-down approach) can create a stable system, but it is a form of dictatorship. Those who start with consideration of the individual (bottom-up approach) ensure happiness of most, but not all people, and the resulting inequality leads to instability of the system.
Another way to describe this dilemma is to consider the differences of two terms, which are often used together - liberty and equality. I submit that (consistent with Lock's worldview) the only equality worth a damn is equality of liberty that is to say equal rights before the law, and the 'pursuit of happiness'. Equality that exceeds what is necessary to ensure liberty of each individual is a path to tyranny. Equality of outcomes, and 'social justice' and other forms of modern 'fairness' are Utopian concepts, on the road to dictatorship.
The preservation of rights of individuals is no longer seem as adequate in the Western societies. Embarking on a Utopian path is a sure way to lose all the benefits of the Western civilization, and may even destroy that civilization. The answer needs to be found quickly, because the West runs out of money and descends into one form of dictatorship or another.