Andrew T

Yeah, I think there is, of course, the potential for... to potentially become... How do I want to put this? What I will say is, I think it's necessary, but even in engaging with...

Those who have, you know, broken trust or who have seemingly split from the association or have jeopardized the safety or security of the association, that you find ways to deal with those situations on a case-by-case basis. You know, that you're responsive to the particular circumstances that cause that action or that particular outcome.

Those who have, you know, broken trust or who have seemingly split from the association or have jeopardized the safety or security of the association, that you find ways to deal with those situations on a case-by-case basis. You know, that you're responsive to the particular circumstances that cause that action or that particular outcome.

Those who have, you know, broken trust or who have seemingly split from the association or have jeopardized the safety or security of the association, that you find ways to deal with those situations on a case-by-case basis. You know, that you're responsive to the particular circumstances that cause that action or that particular outcome.

Rather than, as you would find in modern militaries, where you have like a very clear, this action has this consequence, this action has this consequence, this action, like a lot more flexibility is required because we understand that, you know, we don't have this matrix of crime that authorities do. You know, we're dealing with harm, they're dealing with crime, right?

Rather than, as you would find in modern militaries, where you have like a very clear, this action has this consequence, this action has this consequence, this action, like a lot more flexibility is required because we understand that, you know, we don't have this matrix of crime that authorities do. You know, we're dealing with harm, they're dealing with crime, right?

Rather than, as you would find in modern militaries, where you have like a very clear, this action has this consequence, this action has this consequence, this action, like a lot more flexibility is required because we understand that, you know, we don't have this matrix of crime that authorities do. You know, we're dealing with harm, they're dealing with crime, right?

And so in dealing with harm, we have to approach each of those situations in the context of their situations rather than in some sort of cold, like distant calculation.

And so in dealing with harm, we have to approach each of those situations in the context of their situations rather than in some sort of cold, like distant calculation.

And so in dealing with harm, we have to approach each of those situations in the context of their situations rather than in some sort of cold, like distant calculation.

You know, and I think in approaching it in that way, people are more willing, I think, to fess up or to take accountability for their harm because they know that there's that relationship there that they're going to try to work through it. That while there may be many potential consequences to their actions, there's an openness to dialogue there rather than a rigidity of this is what you did.

You know, and I think in approaching it in that way, people are more willing, I think, to fess up or to take accountability for their harm because they know that there's that relationship there that they're going to try to work through it. That while there may be many potential consequences to their actions, there's an openness to dialogue there rather than a rigidity of this is what you did.

You know, and I think in approaching it in that way, people are more willing, I think, to fess up or to take accountability for their harm because they know that there's that relationship there that they're going to try to work through it. That while there may be many potential consequences to their actions, there's an openness to dialogue there rather than a rigidity of this is what you did.

So this is the outcome automatically.

So this is the outcome automatically.

So this is the outcome automatically.

Although I feel like these digressions always get to something essential and brings out something extra to what I would have... you know, prepared in advance. So we had this split, right? We had the FAU and then you had the MLNT. And they did collaborate where there was common cause, but it wasn't a permanent collaboration. You know,

Although I feel like these digressions always get to something essential and brings out something extra to what I would have... you know, prepared in advance. So we had this split, right? We had the FAU and then you had the MLNT. And they did collaborate where there was common cause, but it wasn't a permanent collaboration. You know,

Although I feel like these digressions always get to something essential and brings out something extra to what I would have... you know, prepared in advance. So we had this split, right? We had the FAU and then you had the MLNT. And they did collaborate where there was common cause, but it wasn't a permanent collaboration. You know,

And while this was taking place in the urban guerrilla warfare sphere, you had different things taking place in the labor movement. The FAU was dealing with the consequences of Big Tent organizing, as they found that the Uruguayan Communist Party, or PCU, had pretty successfully claimed significant influence in the CNT.