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?
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that they aren't, but there are enough differences that we will have to assemble a school of thought that addresses them.
Why? Capitalism works the way that Capitalism works. That's the beauty of Marxism-Leninism - the broad strokes still describe how Capitalism and the State work, even over a century later in a new environment. Yeah, the details change, but that's always been the case. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel unless you're some wrecker who just wants to "fuck shit up" or have delusions of grandeur.
The idea that the new movement will "not necessarily resemble Trotskyism or Marxist-Leninism or Anarchism or anything else" is complete bullshit, built on a lack of understanding of history and general narcissism.