In the neurotic oscillation between the poles of their dualistic identity, RadLibs draw their authority from the disavowal of the figure(s) of violence and terror which supposedly stain our collective ideals for a new set of social organizations and relations to constitute our world, the exemplar of course being Stalin. This inevitably leads to the contradiction (although what is more contradictory than the mere name, Radical Liberal?) wherein the necessary disavowal of the crimes of Stalin (and Mao, the USSR, PRC...) becomes the grounds they must incessantly reconstitute in positing their claims - "here is our emancipatory vision for societal change which, unlike the totalitarian Tankie's, can avoid the pitfalls of revolutionary terror..." - the ghost of Stalin is thus fated to forever haunt them, despite, or rather because of, their neurotic clinging to a possibility of a return to purity from before our original sin. That's why Lenin Marx insisted that we not make excuses for our terror.