If we're talking in terms of the theoretical frameworks used for historical analysis, as someone who specialises in the history of labour and particularly unfree labour, it would be very difficult for me to not engage with and draw upon Marxist theory. Marxist historiography is a very, very useful framework for understanding the things I study in particular, especially when you're looking at the big picture. I've definitely written answers here where Marxian influence in my analysis is apparent.

Having said that, I shy away from calling myself someone who subscribes to Marxist/Marxian historiography. It's profoundly useful but my specific research interests are much more experiential - about the specific and lived social reality of labour, if you will. I don't think Marxist theory alone is very adequate for that task, so I would like to think I use a synthesis of conceptual frameworks (as I would say most historians do and are trained to do these days). I've also written things that have been distinctly unmarxian in their analysis.

If we're talking political philosophy though, I'm definitely not what most people would call a 'Marxist'. There are some issues here and there where I'm out of touch with the centre-left mainstream but by and large I'm either a social democrat or a democratic socialist, depending on who you ask (and in the UK that distinction between those two things are either that they are the same or very different, also depending on who you ask). I've been a moderate Labour voter my entire life and it would take something pretty huge to change that.

I utilize Marxist theories and think they are useful in explanations to support larger historical trends, but I wouldn't label myself a 'marxist' either politically or socially.