Marx argued the state inherently would cease to serve a purpose and would "wither away" (the term itself is from Engels who argued it was based on Marx writings) once class antagonisms no longer exist, so I don't think there's much basis for the idea he believed in "command and control" other than at most in a transition. Ironically given his authoritarianism, Lenins The State and Revolution is one of the best summaries of Marx' criticism of the state, and even Lenin plaid lip-service to the notion of the withering away of the state to the point of arguing for an eventual society without a state.

The core distinction between Marxists and many forms of Anarchists, as early as during the dispute in the First International between Bukharin and Marx, was their view not on the long term dismantling of the state - where they agreed - but the role of the state in the transition from capitalism to socialism, where the anarchists wanted the state dismantled immediately, while Marx argued the state could serve a role in a transition, itself becoming a tool to execute the changes necessary to change society.

In his works on the Paris Commune he explicitly criticised the Communards for failing to take the next step and destroy the bourgeois state. While that could certainly have been replaced with a proposed federation, a key distinction was that he celebrated the bottom up delegation of authority, which is hardly compatible with "command and control" if any part can withdraw.

As such, libertarian Marxism directly opposed to the very existence of a state became a thing, based in large part on his writings on the Paris Commune.