Not necessarily.
Marxism is about controlling the means of production and distribution of “stuff.” It assumes human effort will continue to be necessary to produce “stuff.”
Like the market, Marxism simply assumes an “economy of scarcity.” They are both about how to distribute scarce resources.
What we ‘re talking about here is an “economy of abundance.” Resources, or at least some or many of them, are NOT scarce. This has already happened with information. The interwebs have made acquisition of information that previously had a very high price essentially free.
Such a world, BTW, is the logical conclusion of a market economy. The market has for centuries been bending the productivity curve upwards. Productivity can be somewhat simplistically defined as the amount of human effort needed to produce a given amount of “stuff.” The logical end point of a curve always headed up is eventual arrival at a point where infinite stuff is generated with zero human effort. Or at least something approximating this.
It’s just not as simple as Marx vs. the market. We are facing something that quite literally has no precedent. Which makes it really hard for us to think about. I most certainly include myself in that group.
From our present perspective, I think most people assume the way such a world will be dealt with is by the government redistributing the resources sincce jobs for most will no longer exist. I assume there are libertarian or non-government alternatives. I just don’t know what they are.
In his writings, Marx envisioned a future in which people would be “free from labour” and focus their energies on being artists and philosophers. Communism, in his mind, was part of the process to achieve that utopia.
Marx also envisioned a point of near infinite material goods, but he believed that it would be the end result of collectivist, “managed” effort rather than through a dynamic system such as a free market. Socialism and Communism, in his mind, were milestones toward that end goal. The thing is, had no regard for individualism, nor did he consider that power is an extraordinary drug and that his philosophy would result in crushing deprivation and bloodshed. In short, he was twit.
By the standards of a 10th Century peasant, we are in an "economy of abundance".
If you accept a standard of living of a 10th Century peasant, living in a hut in the woods, then even working a minimum wage job would allow you to retire in just a few years of work, and have your investments supply you with enough wheat to survive.
What people who talk about "economy of abundance" fail to realize, is that human desires are limitless. Once somebody has a smartphone, everybody wants one. Likewise large-screen HDTV, game console, excellent food, etc.