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?
Kinda just describing Marxism-Leninism but with extra steps. MLs are anti-dogma and stress that understanding conditions and adaptation to the existing material circumstances are completely necessary. Anyone saying something has to be done exactly as anything in the past while calling themselves ML is not really getting the part of ML doctrine which is to just do what's best in the existing conditions. Doing something that will blatantly fail under the conditions would be extremely silly.
Sorry for being a logic bro, but this is “no true Scotsman”
Tons of MLs are stupidly doctrinaire. Trots are worse though.
Are they MLs or are they party-less people that claim to be MLs but aren't actually?
They're sympathisers. They like ML but they're not doing anything and they're not in party. If they were in a party they would have a proper political education and wouldn't be so obsessed with mimicking the past but instead testing in the present and using what works while tossing out what doesn't through proper investigation.