"No movement finding itself in this stage of struggle can operate by getting authority from the leading body of the political organs for even minor action that is taken and we don't even know in the case of the actions which have publicize whether they are in fact our people"

The quote by Joe Slovo shows the intricacies and challenges dealt with by motions engaged in resistance, particularly during durations of increased struggle or conflict. Slovo, a prominent anti-apartheid activist and leader within the South African Communist Party and Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, speaks to the fluid and frequently decentralized nature of advanced motions.

In this phase of battle, where the motion is most likely facing extreme repression or operating under clandestine conditions, the ability to look for and acquire authorization from a main authority for each action becomes not practical. The environment requires a degree of autonomy and versatility for operatives on the ground. This decentralization can be crucial for several reasons: it allows for rapid response to altering situations, minimizes the danger of direct exposure or capture of crucial figures by opposing forces, and empowers people to make decisions based upon instant circumstances.

However, this autonomy also presents difficulties. Without a central command authorizing every action, there is the threat of unsanctioned operations or actions being misattributed to the movement. This can cause questions about accountability and control, as well as possible misstatement of the movement's objectives and methods. The battle is further compounded by uncertainty about whether actions that are publicized, specifically those that may be questionable or tactically destructive, were undoubtedly carried out by members of the movement.

Slovo's reflection underscores the stress between centralized control and essential functional freedom within liberation movements. It highlights the obstacles of maintaining cohesion and guaranteeing that all activities line up with the movement's overall objectives and ethical guidelines, especially when running in a highly repressive or unsafe environment. It speaks to the need for trust and communication within the movement, as well as the wider concern of how advanced groups sustain their identity and goals in the middle of the chaos of conflict.