It has been argued that there are no democratic philosophies of history, and those speculative philosophies of history that do exist, have served totalitarian ideologies of either the left or the right. 1 The Marxist theory of history, for example, posits the primacy of the material world over that of ideas, and in doing so, disvalues the idea of democracy. This, in turn, has led to a totalitarian ideology of the left based on it, that of modern communism. In criticizing Marxism, we need not deny the importance of economic conditions or say that the class struggle is unreal, but only that historical materialism is insufficient as a description of human historical behavior. Historical materialism ignores the independent role of ideas, conscious and unconscious in human actions, and in the story of history. If we were to apply the theory of dialectics to Marxism, we would say that the theory of Hegelian dialectics was the thesis, and that Marxism was its antithesis. Where Hegel's idealist philosophy of history mistakenly viewed ideas as the sole element in historical change, ignoring economic forces and class struggle, Marx's antithesis has the exact opposite fault—seeing only economics and ignoring the importance of ideas in history.
If we do view Hegelian idealism as the thesis, and Marxist materialism its antithesis, then the theory of dialectics calls us to ask the question, what is the synthesis? Surely any psychological theory of history must be incomplete without such a synthesis. 2 Because idealism and materialism are both