In the 1970s there were lots of libertarians that were marxists or socialists, they saw no conflict in the terms because libertarian is such a loosely defined term that it can encompass almost anything you care to stuff into it. Even today libertarianism has no strict prescription, the political movement takes all manner of refugee into it. In discussions I routinely run across libertarians that believe in fully functional centralized government judicial and policing systems; on the flip side, I also run across libertarians that are more of the anarchy wing and believe in private police systems.
What does liberty mean to you? That's all libertarianism actually is, and that has always plagued the movement.
If forcibly implemented marxism means liberty or freedom to you, good enough, you can call yourself a libertarian now if you see fit. The Hayek wing will always disagree with that, however their disagreement is also entirely irrelevant as they don't have much control over the term or the movement.
Well, that shouldn't be that surprising since the term was Socialist in its beginning before the current US right-wing tendencies co-opted it to mean Propertarianism.
What does liberty mean to you? That's all libertarianism actually is, and that has always plagued the movement.
If forcibly implemented marxism means liberty or freedom to you, good enough, you can call yourself a libertarian now if you see fit. The Hayek wing will always disagree with that, however their disagreement is also entirely irrelevant as they don't have much control over the term or the movement.