A very interesting thing happened today that tested my commitment to being who I say that I am and what I believe in. But let me back up a little and explain.
Here at the occupation in Washington, D.C., there have been a series of disagreements and arguments. Although most people believe in the principles of consensus and the operation of the General Assembly, many times issues arise between individuals which seem to take on a life of their own. There is really nothing surprising about this. In any social group, conflicts arise between people which must be resolved. In some cases, issues are successfully and completely resolved, but in many cases they are not. If they are not resolved, additional problems can result which can eventually impact everyone in the group. To a certain extent, this is what has happened in this occupation as well as others.
Some people ascribe these problems to infiltrators, provocateurs and others who have an interest in dissolving the movement. I have no doubt that there are such people. There are also powerful interests that oppose the Occupation Movement. So no one needs to convince me that these things exist. However, I think it is a mistake to assume honest disagreements are the work of sinister elements who seek to destroy us.
First of all, when we begin to believe that every disagreement is a sign of a some plot against us, we accomplish two things: we sow paranoia in our ranks and further the work of any opponents who really do wish to destroy us. Secondly, we fail to address the actual disagreement, deal with it and move on. Third, when people are not heard, when their concerns are not addressed, they feel dishonored and disrespected and often feel the need to defend themselves, especially when their concerns and issues are labeled as deliberate attacks by infiltrators or worse, as traitors to the cause. This is how enemies are created, not how cohesive movements are formed.
Today, I offered to sell something I own and contribute one-half of the proceeds to the cause. However, I no sooner made the offer than one of the principal organizers of this budding group questioned my motives, demanding to know where the other half of the proceeds would go. “To me,” I answered. After all, I had originally decided to sell this domain name because I needed the money, and because I decided to use another domain I owned instead of this one for a new project. I admit, I was taken aback by what seemed like an attack. The organizer shared her feelings via email with the entire group and seemed to be upset by the very idea of auctioning the domain name. I revoked by offer, partly out my emotional reaction but also because I don’t want to be involved with people who are that reactionary to what I thought was a simple unsolicited offer from someone who has little money to begin with. In addition, the organizer who questioned my motive is one of the wealthier people I know.
The point is that although I certainly felt attacked and reacted by withdrawing my offer, I am not ascribing her motives or actions to a deliberate attack on me. I also don’t believe she is an infiltrator who is deliberately trying to destroy the movement. She simply disagrees with the principal behind selling domain names associated with the movement. Although I find no blame with her motives, I think that her approach to dealing with it was totally inappropriate. I believe that when you have a concern with something that a particular person raised, you need to communicate in a respectful manner directly with the person who caused the concern. This was not how she operated. Consequently, I withdrew my offer to contribute to her cause.