One could argue that Juche has worked, but I would honestly need to research more about it to determine if it is its own distinct philosophy or if it is Marxism-Leninism in Korean material conditions (I would also need to determine how much Juche influenced their survival against American imperialism). Other lines are not so lucky: Maoism claims no currently-existing socialist countries, orthodox Marxism claims literally nothing (except the Paris Commune, I guess), and other niche camps are hardly worth talking about.

I agree with cfgaussian in their assessment of Marxism-Leninism: It is the most scientific communist tendency based on observable results (the currently-existing socialist countries and past ones show that it can succeed and has succeeded) and the theoretical strength (meaning how much it is able to answer questions regarding the word and combat criticism). I am a Marxist-Leninist not simply because it is the only road I see to creating a better life for all people, but also because it answers questions in a way that liberal and social-opportunist ideologies fail to answer scientifically (seriously, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are seldom used in consistent ways and are often so vague and mired in idealist understandings of politics that they hardly amount to anything more than pseudoscience posturing as science).

Supporting the USSR and modern PRC is not contradictory to me; they both count as socialist experiments enabling the worker's liberation movement to better understand what mistakes to avoid and how we can succeed as a socialist society. I do not think that the market reforms in China were a betrayal of socialism, and I think the PRC is the greatest ally to socialism that we currently have (in terms of influence). I would also say that the PRC's survival into the current day (as a socialist country, not a capitalist one like ultras would like you to believe) shows that the way of the PRC is the one we should look towards for inspiration in constructing a socialist country (though I am not well-informed on the economy of Stalin-era socialism, so I have to look into that to say whether or not I would be on board with it).

However, I am a bit weirded out by your mention of Hoxha. Could you explain why you include Hoxha there (and not Marx or Engels)? From my experience, only Hoxhaists bother upholding Hoxha.