I would say most definitely no, but partially yes.
Most scholars think 1 John was written as a supplement to the Gospel. And like the gospel it is "multi" authored, a first version in line with the theology of the first edition of John, and a revised version we have today that is a sectarian correction to that Gospel, even as the fourth Gospel was itself revised. The first and second theologies are seemingly incompatible in both Gospel and 1John, requiring gymnastics to harmonize.
IMO 2 John and 3 John were written by or on behalf of competing bishops, and almost certainly differing sects claiming John as their patron saint, over the issue of itinerant preachers. 2 John represents the position of an established local church, where the bishop lays out a sectarian litmus test, warning the congregation that they my not support preachers he does not approve of, but even greeting those or letting them in your house is grounds to be excommunicated (expelled from the church building). The author of 3 John calls out the writer of 2 John, even mentioning by name (probably an anachronistic reference to the bishops ancestral claim to office via this Diotrephes in verse) and saying he "speaks evil of me" and that he refuses to greet the preachers he sends, doesn't let others do it and even kicks those out of his church who do greet them.
What is interesting to me is that the author of 3 John (IMO a bishop) is saying that the band of itinerant preachers in view comes from his see. It implies they are indoctrinated and trained by him or his school/sect. It puts a locale on the home base of at least one group of these preachers. (I am amazed so few people even consider the home base, as that is critical to understanding the development.) This gives us some context to 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 fragment, which seems to be a letter promoting an evangelical tour --our itinerant preachers again-- coming to a church near you, imploring those who will be receiving them to get ready, and have money and supplies for these saints. Note, some scholars speculate that this was an encyclical letter, and that Titus was merely the name plugged in for the version which appears in 2 Corinthians version, and that any headline preacher of repute could be plugged in. Again the comity expected is in line with 3 John.
Now as to the "yes" portion of responding to Marcionites, we are dealing with two competing Sects, or rather groups of Sects maybe are not Sects in the strictly theological alignment but arranged along political lines where the patron saint, John vs Paul, is in view as support for rival claims to local bishoprics. So to the extent that the writer of 2 John is defending a physical Jesus against the spiritual one other Johannine camp preachers --and Pauline and thus also Marcionite preachers-- preach, it can be seen as a response to all Gnostic and Docetic preachers. The response in 3 John indicates that even in the orthodoxy at a relatively late time of formation, that the Spiritual Christ was acceptable along side preaching of the Physical Christ. The lines seem to be political, not theological. Theology is employed to buttress political position, not the driver of it.
The Johannine sect of the first authors of the Gospel of John and 1 John was neither Marcionite nor proto-Orthodox. There is a rejection of the Davidic Jesus and of the last Prophet theology presented in the Synoptics. There is IMO a strong hint of proto-Cainite theology present. But that is neither here nor there. The first version of John seems to me a direct response and corrective (from the author's sectarian point of view) to the gospel of Matthew, seemingly using the Marcionite version of the gospel as base, but putting forward a corrective also to the Marcionite theology. As the letter 1 John is supporting, it is meant to introduce or put in context the message of the Gospel, so likely represents it's own corrective.
The second version of John and 1 John is corrective to the first version of John from the perspective of the developing orthodoxy. The Cainite elements are tempered or covered over with an anti-Judas layer, that IMO is part of bringing Peter into the Gospel (I do not think he was in the first version at all) and harmonizing with the Synoptic accounts. This is a corrective to all the Johannine and Pauline sects, including the Marcionites, but not specifically targeting them.
2 and 3 John are focused on a battle that raged for well over a millennia about the role of traveling preachers and monastic movements beyond the control of the local bishop, about which party had the greater authority. This continued through the reformation and counter reformation with the Jesuits (e.g., the famous show down in Brazil), and to this day in Evangelical churches about the traveling preacher shows. To the extent that Marcionites sent out a traveling show (as I suspect all the competing sects did in the Greek heartland) 2 John rebukes them, asserting the authority of the bishop, and more specifically of the author of 2 John claiming essentially archbishop authority. And again 3 John rejects saying that his authority and not that of 2 John's author is the greater; neither accepts the other it seems, like a bishop versus a abbot clash.