I don't really have to imagine it. Liberal and conservative is a very contemporary notion based on the property relations of the industrial revolution and the social organising of Napoleonic empires.
In most parts of the world there are no liberals or conservatives. Ancient Greece didn't have them, they had dozens of differing political factions and dispositions. Romans started to develop it with Populares and Optimates, but that was framed around more versatile issues.
The Mayan political system was organised around religion and houses of nobility that ruled the city states through very intricate political subterfuge.
The Incans had a government that was largely driven through the participatory elements of their labour-based tax system, and their ideological ideas were shaped by divination and ancestral worship.
The Akkadian Empire was structured around its system of tributes and taxation, and generally maintained a political body concerned with commerce and military distribution.
Liberals and conservatives are fundamentally the same thing. Driven by manufactured distinctions so that no matter what people vote for, they're still voting for the Napoleonic system of social organising.
It's a dichotomy designed to remove democratic choice, and most cultures throughout most of history have not existed in a circumstance where such an idea was pertinent or useful to the ruling classes.
Especially since what really makes this fissure so necessary in modern times is secularism. Prior to this you could just use religious sectarianism to divide people.
And as for Marx, I think you should read him because your assumptions aren't doing you any favours. Aside from Kapital, he doesn't really discuss economics too much. He was primarily a philosopher who was interested in the scientific nature of history and societal development.
That's why he is often termed "The Father of Sociology." Even though he rejected that notion. Sociology was kind of a pseudoscience intended to disarm the radical and meaningful content of Marxism.
