Humanist Technocracy and Marxism

As has been previously discussed, Private Property is not necessarily inimical to Humanist values, so, in that respect, Capitalism can be consistent with Humanist Technocracy.  Similarly, insofar as the abolition of Private Property can be Humanist, Socialism can be consistent with Humanist Technocracy.  And, just as the dogmatic acceptance of the Invisible Hand is antithetical to any Technocratic principles, so, too, is that of the Dialectical Materialist concept of History.  However, Humanist Technocracy also resolves one of the significant incoherences in Marxism--that Revolution is the product both of a necessary natural Dialectical process, and of the ascendant self-determination of the Proletariat.  For, those two are combined in Techne, i. e. in the deliberate harnessing of a natural force, no different from that of wind power.  But, then, Revolution is subject to the criteria of Humanist Technocracy--that it is successful as a means to Socialism, and that its violence is the only means to overcoming de-humanizing Capitalist exploitation. Now, the former is arguably so, but the latter has not been universally embraced by Socialists, with even Trotsky equivocal about it.  So, while Dogmatism is the reason for the rejection of the Invisible Hand by Humanist Technocracy, the concrete violence of Technical Dialectical Materialism is, if not sufficiently anti-Humanistic, at least problematically Humanistic, at best.