I'm not a hardline ML, nor am I a trot. I find myself attracted to theory from both. There's a lot of very valid criticism of Trotsky, Stalin, ML states, and Trot organizations. There's reasonable critique for all. But there's also good praise for all too. I've long tried to figure out what kind of marxist I am. I find myself drawn to Trotsky's transitional program, but also to the more (in my opinion) realistic idea of socialism in one country. When it comes down to actually organizing does it really matter? If there's a full ML movement going strong I'll join that. Or if it was a trotskyist movement going strong, I'd join that. I just want to see marxism advance. Much of the infighting feels like the narcissism of small differences. I guess I'm asking is it ok to be a heterodox marxist?
I will say there are fundamental tensions of strategy and theory surrounding the state and political organization, the global power of capital etc, what form of freedom one desires, that no matter what you label yourself you are taking sides on even as the questions surrounding those and other issues continually evolve. But one must treat those as questions of form, labeling should only be an afterthought. And really, that's what tendencies are supposed to do at the moment they are labeled, however as questions change, why keep the label. Only reason I call myself a Marxist is because Marx's fundamental critique of capitalism (though which thing one thinks the fundamental critique is, that's a can of worms to open) is still so pertinent. The value form has not changed. I cannot say the same about a label created out of a particular political struggle in x country in the 20th century, even if that struggle involved core things to still take a side in.