I think most of us here are Marxist-Leninists. The reason for me at least is fairly simple: it's the most scientific (in the sense that it looks at the world through a materialist lens and analyses it rationally, systematically and holistically) and it demonstrably works when used to guide revolutionary practice.

The second part is particularly important because if your ideology doesn't work in the real world then what good is it? I'm paraphrasing here, but: "The point isn't just to analyze the world, it's to change it." Only Marxism-Leninism has managed to produce successful revolutions that create stable socialist societies which have improved the level of human well-being beyond what any capitalist system would be capable of doing in the same circumstances.

Marxism-Leninism is also flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and to incorporate a newer and better understanding of how the world works. Dogmatism is the death of science. I find that China has some great phrases that express the scientific approach to socialism, such as: "Crossing the river by feeling the stones" and "Seeking truth from facts". We observe the world as it is to form theories, proceed forward through trial and error, adopt what works and discard what doesn't.

This also means we should be open to learning from many different sources, so we should not attach ourselves to one particular person or country (though obviously some have been objectively more successful than others, and we should study why that is and learn how we can replicate their successes and avoid their mistakes).

I follow Marxism-Lesbianism because women are hot.

A Marxist-Leninist here as well. In my view, dialectical materialism is the best tool we have for understanding the world and social relations.

I am a Marxist-Leninist, because Marxism-Leninism has proven itself in theory and in practice. I don't think it makes much sense to see which country "best represents Marxism-Leninism," and instead makes more sense to see what countries use Marxism-Leninism in struggling against imperialism, settler-colonialism, and neocolonialism, and in establishing and building socialism, as well as how Marxism-Leninism helps them.

While I do identify more with Marxist Leninists than any other tendency, I don't like these labels a lot. I think sometimes this leads more to group identity, so people are forced to uphold values of a particular tendency rather than criticize and evolve our thinking.

Marx and Engels laid the foundation of the system and there were many contributors to our field. We have people like Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky (before he turned into a renegade), Bebel, Liebknecht, Plekhanov, Bukharin, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin, Losurdo, Deng, and many others. Some people held contradictory views, some argued against each other, but I do think debating is important to make our field grow scientifically. Our science needs criticism and contradiction in order to develop itself more and to respond to our current practical issues.

It does not mean, however, we should embrace eclecticism, as some people may criticize correctly. When we are building a political movements we need to have a clear political line and avoid embracing everything, or we end up with nothing. In this way, MLs were the people who brought me to Marxism, and I tend to agree with them more than anyone else.

I'm a Heinz-57 Varieties socialist; little bit of this, a little bit of that. If it makes sense to me, I add it to my internal folio, which sometimes leads to bizarre contradiction. I blend together everything from Karl Marx to Deng to anarchism to Groucho Marx. I'm either all the labels, or none, I'm not sure, and I quit worrying about it ages ago.

ML, because it's the only thing that's worked

Marxism-Leninism-mzd thought-Dengism-thirdworldist

Also sympathetic towards Maoists and Anarchists.

Marxist-Leninist and militant unionism

ML for sure

ML with CAT (Marxism-Leninism with Chronic Anxiety Thought).

Okay, I am joking about the last part. Kind of. But I adhere to ML in its various practiced forms because history and theory have shown it to consistently succeed in rapidly transforming entire societies out of exploitative, desperate conditions into largely equal and modern societies that look after their people as a priority.

I see it kind of like this:

“When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist, when asked if he is a ‘Newtonian’ or of a biologist when asked if he is a ‘Pasteurian.’ There are truths so evident, so much a part of the peoples’ knowledge, that it is now useless to debate them.” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara

When you get past the bubble of imperial slander, the evidence is overwhelming.

Now does this mean I think ML is the "end of history" theory development of Marxism? No. However, it is currently the most proven and reliable means of dealing with the recent (history) conditions. I always try to keep an open mind to further scientific development, but that doesn't mean further developments will come from people throwing out ideas at random either; they will have to come from being tested against reality and so far, ML is the one that holds up.

Note that when I say "ML in its various practiced forms", I'm going by the idea that, for example, China is its own expression of ML in culture and conditions (e.g. "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"), not a unique branch of Marxism. Same with the USSR. Same with Cuba. Etc.

maoism

I'm a marxist-leninist, but call myself an eco-socialist as well