Why do many reputable Marxists speak of “Stalinism”?

As an aside, why do Trotskyists slander the few genuine Marxist intellectuals we’ve had? Here’s the IMT babbling about Hobsbawm and “Stalinism”.Mike Davis (a supposed Trotskyist) writes in Planet of Slums,“Although raised to power by peasant revolt, Asian Stalinism also tried to staunch the influx from the countryside.” (pg. 53).What the hell? Not to discredit any of the ideas in his work, as it is all very helpful, but why does this nonsense prevail?And then there’s Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism, who can’t resist using the term “Stalinism”—namely, “Market Stalinism”. And a questionable statement from Fisher is found here,“What late capitalism repeats from Stalinism is just this valuing of symbols of achievement over actual achievement.”Interestingly enough, those that use the term “Stalinism” or some adherent never can define it. It’s garbage. Lastly, Paul Moufawad (MLM) exposes both Fisher and the International Trotskyist Tendency,“In other ways, and as I have argued in both Austerity Apparatus and Methods, it falls prey to the very ideology it seeks to demystify, particularly in its uncritical use of the term "Stalinist", itself a product of the very cold war ideology that would produce "capitalism" and which plays a fundamental role in the latter half of Capitalist Realism. This critical engagement is not what is put forward by the IMT's review, and why would it be? The IMT accepts the same cold war ideological doctrine of "Stalinism"––it is in fact essential to Trotskyist discourse––that you would think they would be even more amenable to Fisher than myself. But apparently since Fisher is not a member of their club of cretins it doesn't matter that he valorizes some of their shitty concepts; if he's not writing a book that mainly refers to Marx and Trotsky his work must be dismissed.” (Link) via /r/communism https://ift.tt/3bixKmc