Concerning the Hegelian dialectic, its attractiveness is that it is quasi-evolutionary. Synthesis as such is the "bump"; the term 'synthesis' is obscure but it can be clarified in the language of the quantum superposition, or in terms of tangled hierarchy, viz., that it is the superposed state of thesis-antithesis (in plural) in tension.
J.P. Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason (Critique de la raison dialectique) was an attempt at making the superposition of Kierkegaardian subjectivity and collective Marxist praxis. But the reason why the hypostatic Hegelian collectivity does not work---in all eventuality---is because of the eschatological, final non-synthesis, e.g., what happens in the case of dialectical materialism is that capitalism gets defeated by collectivism, and thus there is no synthesis. This is the fundamental philosophical flaw in original ideological formulations of dialectical materialism of antiquity, that the final subsumption is not a superposition of individual happiness and collective utility, but of the latter usurping and claiming the former as its own subtext with the condition that the former submits to programmes of the latter. It goes contrary to human nature, and hence to evolution, and even in sociobiological and quantum-theoretic terms; the whole fucking thing is not "organic."
As long as there is the concept of tension inherent in global socioeconomic ideologies, there cannot be general human happiness, even as dualistic conflicts will make for ramified conflict and opposition. It's one of the principles of social Darwinism, it's very basic, unevolved stuff. Rampant capitalism, for example, would create social inequality and an eventual quasi-feudalism of serfdom (and hence unrest, unhappiness, and discontent; suppression and servitude), and on the other hand, overt collectivity would have the exact same result. These ideological, dichotomous crossroads always converge in a confluence of failed, botched-up "synthesis," they both come out in the same wash of doing exactly what they set out not to do; they're both fucked up because they're both artificial artifices, they're inauthentic contrivances, mechanistic castles in the sky.
But as long as the lowest common denominator is the median Bell-curve significator for human affairs, no quonic "ensembles" implementing nondual, superposed, entangled-hierarchic social structures could ever come to pass, even as human Habit would remain being that of basic survival; there would be no room for authentic Creativity and Co-creativity, the stuff that teleology is made of. If human sublimation, evolution, and involution are not the major ingredients, there can never be a tangled hierarchy of essence and existence; one would always precede the other, a fortiori, whereby all "practical ensembles" would intrinsically and eventually go completely awry (see human history hitherto).