Yes Marx’s own thought does.

It’s important, though, to recognize the revisions and rethinking that marxism, neo-marxism, etc. has gone through. There is no one “marxism,” and marxists disagree about all sorts of things.

Correct

Marx more or less posited a natural human telos, in which the human being is to become himself, in which his activity would beyond the enslavement in servile labour, hitherto historically necessary in order to subdue and tame external and internal nature, and virtually invariably exploited by the powerful or ‘haves’.

This end, however, is not just to take pleasure in a crass ‘materialism’ as we commonly call it, but to actualize himself in the liberal–albeit immanent, not transcendent–employment of his creative energies in a world made (as much as practically possible) free of scarcity and serviilty.

Marx was a complete materialist Catholic Anarchist. He believed there was simply nothing beyond the material. As his right hand Engels put it:
” The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.”

Once the working class had the means of production in their hands to satisfy their material needs, the dictatorship of the proletariat would reign and the classless society would result. That Marx was wrong about this, as he was wrong about most of his predictions regarding capitalism, history amply demostrates. I enjoy reading Marx for much the same reason I enjoy reading Freud: both men could write with style and verve, but as world views both philosophies have less to do with reality than a Bugs Bunny marathon.

I can’t remember whom Mr. Ulyanov was referring to but it is apropos here.