I do think that some of Marx' thoughts still have some value today. But we have to take into consideration the historical situation when they rote their works. In the middle of the 19th century, it was pretty clear that a small group of people which you can call the bourgeoisie "bought" the laws. Women had no voting rights, there were slaves in the US and in Russia, in Prussia the weight of the vote depended on how much taxes you paid.
Things have changed a lot, and nowadays you can't just buy power as easily as then, even if you're wealthy. However, there's a tipping point where the amount of fortune can be used politically. And after the January supreme court decision, it will be a lot easier in the US to behave like Don Corleone ("Give it to a Jew congressman.")
The world has changed a great deal, true, and capitalism has developed into a system deeply embedded into for many a collective mindset, enhanced by socialism's own defeats in the 20th Century's class struggles.
Capitalism has developed so as to require a state, which acts on an international level, be it through 'negotiation' or outright war, in the interests of its domestic capitals. Imperialism is, as Lenin said, the highest (most developed) stage of capitalism.
I can't recommend enough Chris Harman's book
Zombie Capitalism, which is a thorough assessment of the relevance of Marx during and after the global recessions of the past decade or so.
The problem with all the socialist experiments so far (or those who called themselves socialist) is that none of them respected freedom of speech or political opposition. And this includes Lenin and Trotsky.
On the contrary; Lenin devoted his life to painstaking examinations of other so-called socialists so as to be able to thoroughly refute their theories. There's nothing wrong with dialectical engagement with others' opinions, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with them - and nobody, I hope, will look down upon the effort it takes to carefully read what your political opponents are saying enough in order to then refute their argument. As Guy Debord wrote, "In the battle of ideas, weak ideas must be attacked." Part of the reason why Lenin was able to successfully lead the Bolsheviks to revolution, through much domestic struggle, was his unrepentant and relentless exposés of many ideas in popular circulation in a Europe increasingly interested - because of its own economic needs - in Marxist thought.
As for Trotsky, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to some evidence of his supposed anti-freedom thought or rhetoric.
Before you do, though, I note a vast difference between libertarianism and 'freedom of speech'.
Also, read
this, it's great.
