Anarchy Paralysis

ESSAY: This is an essay by a Noisebridger expressing their ideas. | E

Why We Couldn't Act: Authority, Data, and Do-ocracy

I. INTRODUCTION: The Pattern of Paralysis

In anarchist communities, we face a recurring pattern: multiple people recognize harm, document it, and attempt intervention through established processes -- yet action is repeatedly deferred.

In these cases, the evidence is often intuitionally clear, whether whispered in private chats or argued stridently in public forums, but fails to overcome an invisible threshold for action. This failure arises from a misapplication of our specific anarchist principles and how that misapplication interacts with emergent power structures.

To wit: we are not a "consensus anarchy"; we are a "do-ocratic consensus anarchy."

As Jo Freeman documented in "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (1970),^[1] the absence of formal structure doesn't eliminate power; it makes power invisible and therefore unaccountable. When communities claim to be "structureless" or "leaderless," power still accumulates in certain individuals. The lack of formal positions means that power accrues in informal channels that are harder to challenge.

In this pattern, an overcommitment to consensus without a balance in do-ocracy becomes the mechanism that prevents anarchist action.

We confuse 'no hierarchy' with 'no one can act,' and 'consensus' with 'permission to act,' turning horizontal structure into a trap.

Freeman argued that "to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an 'objective' news story."

Striving for "pure consensus" can become a smokescreen that allows informal hierarchies to operate unchallenged while preventing those with legitimate standing from acting. As a result, communities that espouse anarchist values become paralyzed by their own organizational culture.

The question this document addresses:

What structural and cultural elements need to be in place for a do-ocratic consensus anarchy to actually protect itself when harm is occurring?

II. THE FOUR PILLARS OF ANARCHIST CONFLICT RESOLUTION

A. Respect for Mediator Data

We choose mediators because we trust them. We ask people with experience, good judgment, and a track record of being fair to do difficult, emotionally exhausting work.

This work cultivates in the mediator a particular lens developed after hours, possibly days, of emotional labor, not just in the engagement of people being mediated, but also in investigation of the people connected to the issue.

What's needed:

• Recognition that failed mediation IS dispositive evidence
• Understanding that process abuse during mediation warrants immediate escalation
• Trust in the mediator's assessment as authoritative data

What happens instead:

• First mediator's failed mediation → "Let's try a different mediator"
• Second mediator's failed mediation → "Maybe we need more time?"
• Mediator testimony treated as "their subjective experience" rather than "diagnostic data from the expert we asked"

Bakunin distinguished between hierarchies of expertise and hierarchies of power.^[2] Mediators develop expertise through the labor of attempting resolution. When they report that "mediation failed due to process abuse," that's expert observation, not opinion. Respecting this expertise doesn't create authority hierarchy - it recognizes epistemic justice: the mediator did the work to see the pattern, giving them standing to name it.

When we dismiss mediator assessments, we devalue the emotional and intellectual labor they performed, fail to recognize expertise gained through direct observation, and enable process weaponization by requiring multiple people to be harmed before acting.

The principle:

Failed mediation can be considered conclusive data for escalation, not an invitation to try again with a different mediator.

B. Authority-First Culture

Many people misunderstand what "do-ocratic consensus anarchy" actually means, and that confusion can paralyze us.

Noisebridge is do-ocratic first. You have authority to act when you see something that needs doing. Consensus comes in as the check - the community can challenge your action, discuss it, and potentially block it. But consensus doesn't grant permission to act in the first place.

Building working consensus for action -- turning individual action into coordinated group action -- prevents downstream conflicts and addresses the reality that people have relationships and connections. But when the growing consensus fails to give way to necessary action, then the problem isn't a need for more consensus.

The problem is the waiting for universal/unanimous consensus before acting.

What's needed:

• Cultural expectations that reinforce authority-first action
• Cultural clarity that says working consensus is valuable but universal agreement isn't required
• Practice of building coalitions while being willing to act if consensus-building stalls

What happens instead:

• People wait for universal consensus before feeling authorized to act
• Look for approval from "central" people to justify action
• Confuse "building working consensus" (smart coalition work) with "requiring universal agreement" (paralysis)

The principle:

You have authority to act when you have standing. Building working consensus is smart. What you don't need: universal agreement or approval from "central" people. Don't let lack of perfect consensus prevent necessary action while harm continues.

C. "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For"

There is no "someone more legitimate" who's going to come save the day.

In anarchist spaces, authority doesn't come from title, seniority, or longevity. It comes from doing the work. If you see harm, document it, and can defend your decision to the community, you are the authority. There are no "real adults in the room," just peers.

What's needed:

• Recognition that authority comes from action and accountability, not position
• Confidence to act without waiting for validation from "someone more important"
• Practice of distributed authority in real time

What happens instead:

• Some community members defer to perceived "steward consensus"
• Others wait for reactions to their proposals before moving forward
• Multiple people implicitly wait for someone perceived as "more central" to give the green light
• When a more central-seeming person takes over mediation, earlier assessments seem less legitimate by comparison

Prefigurative politics:

Gustav Landauer argued that anarchism is about "being the change we want to see" - creating the future society through present action.^[3] If we want a society where authority is distributed, we must practice distributed authority. That means claiming it when we have standing, not waiting for someone to grant it.

When we wait for someone 'more legitimate' to act, we're not prefiguring autonomous action - we're actually prefiguring informal hierarchy.

The principle:

If you see harm, document it, and can defend your action - you are authorized. Stop waiting for someone "more important" to do it.

D. Active Anti-Hierarchy Maintenance

Communities need ongoing practices to make informal hierarchy visible and resist it. Claiming "we're horizontal" doesn't prevent hierarchy - it just makes it invisible.

The "centering" antipattern: One person gets treated as the final arbiter despite having no formal authority. Their assessment seems "more legitimate" based on who they are. Everyone claims "there's no center" while simultaneously treating someone as central.

Freeman's insight: In structureless groups, power accrues to those with more time, better connections, and perceived legitimacy. This creates "elites" who control the group "as surely as if they had been elected," giving them informal veto power and making their assessment "count more." The hierarchy exists only because people treat it as real.

Informal hierarchy is more dangerous than formal hierarchy because it's invisible and therefore unaccountable -- you can't challenge a structure nobody admits exists. Recent anarchist critique (Sitrin, Azzellini) argues that claiming to be "horizontal" while informal hierarchies operate is worse than acknowledged hierarchy.^[4]

Freeman's solution: Make power structures explicit so they can be held accountable. Name when informal hierarchy is forming, actively resist centrality dynamics, and remind each other that authority is distributed.

The principle:

No one is "central" enough that their inaction should prevent your action. Act on your authority, defend your decision, accept challenge - but don't defer to phantoms.

III. HOW THESE FAILURES COMPOUND

The cascade effect:

1. Mediator data not respected (epistemic injustice) → First mediator's failed attempt doesn't trigger escalation
2. Waiting for consensus (process fetishism) → Documentation efforts stop when validation doesn't materialize
3. "Someone else will do it" (prefigurative failure) → People wait for validation from perceived "center"
4. Perceived centrality bottleneck (informal hierarchy) → Second attempt delegitimizes previous assessments → When second attempt also fails, system is stuck

Process fetishism:

Post-Occupy critiques identified "meeting-ism" and process fetishism as major failure modes:^[5] when process becomes more important than addressing harm, the process has been weaponized. In this pattern:

• Multiple mediation attempts prioritize process correctness over harm reduction
• Waiting for "enough documentation" while harm continues
• Consensus requirements prevent action despite widespread recognition of problem

The process becomes a shield for the person causing harm and a trap for those trying to address it.

Result:

Harm continues. People burn out. Community members leave. The person causing harm gains "missing stair" status - everyone routes around them rather than addressing the problem directly.

IV. WHAT BREAKS THE PATTERN

The pattern breaks when someone treats mediator data as dispositive, acts on do-ocratic authority without seeking permission, doesn't wait for "the center" to validate, and creates documentation as defense rather than permission slip.

The mechanism:

1. Respecting mediator data: "Multiple mediators failed - that IS the evidence"
2. Claiming authority: Announcing action rather than asking permission
3. Creating coordination infrastructure: Making patterns legible to enable support
4. Demonstrating there is no center: Just acting, proving centrality is performative

This works not because of better evidence or more consensus, but because someone exercises the authority that was always available to everyone in the community.

V. PRINCIPLES FOR FUTURE ACTION

Kropotkin argued that anarchism is based on free association - voluntary cooperation among equals.^[6] But this includes the right to disassociate from those who make cooperation impossible. Some object that unilateral action is authoritarian. However, non-action allows individuals to exercise unchecked informal authority.

When communities avoid direct confrontation, power does not disappear - it simply concentrates in those most willing to ignore social feedback.

When harm is occurring:

1. Trust mediator assessment - if mediation fails due to process abuse, escalate immediately (retrying enables process weaponization)
2. Exercise do-ocratic authority - act, document (if possible), defend your decision, accept community challenge
3. Don't wait for the center - if you see harm, you have standing; others' inaction doesn't invalidate your action
4. Create coordination infrastructure - make patterns legible to enable support, not to ask permission

In anarchist spaces, authority is distributed: you have it, you must accept accountability for it, you cannot defer to hierarchy, and the community validates after you act, not before.

VI. THE TWO KINDS OF "NAMING"

There are two types of articulation: phenomenological and structural.

Phenomenological naming allows people to validate each others' experiences ("yes, I feel that too"). Structural naming lets people coordinate action ("here's what we're responding to").

Phenomenological naming:

• "They misrepresent things"
• "They create confusion"
• "They attack when disagreed with"
• "They're manipulative"
• "Something feels off about them"
• "They make everything about them"
• "You can't have a normal conversation with them"

This describes EXPERIENCE but doesn't create FRAMEWORK.

Structural naming:

• Maps specific behaviors to undesirable results
• Tests against "Would a Reasonable Person do this?"
• Names recognizable patterns
• Provides sufficient detail to enable others to evaluate the claim

In technical spaces, coordination requires systematic frameworks. Not because feelings aren't valid, but because people need translatable patterns to defend decisions they make.

The documentation doesn't replace feelings as authorization; the documentation serves as a communicable reference point.

VII. APPLICATION BEYOND ANY SPECIFIC CASE

Anarchy Paralysis arises whenever:

• Someone causes diffuse harm that's hard to articulate
• Multiple people recognize it but feel unable to act
• Informal hierarchy creates bottlenecks
• "Consensus" is confused with "permission to act"

Recognizing the pattern:

When everyone's waiting for someone else to "step up" -- or waiting for a person who is "more central," "more legitimate," to agree -- or because "everyone needs to agree first" or "we need more evidence" indicates this failure mode.

The authority test:

Three questions determine whether someone has standing to act:

Can the harm be articulated? Can the action be defended? Is there a preparedness to be challenged?

If yes to all three, authority exists to act.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Anarchist authority is distributed (everyone has it), exercised through action (not granted through consensus), and validated through community response (not pre-authorized).

The needed social infrastructure for structural prevention of ongoing harm is respect for expertise (mediator data as dispositive), understanding of our own model (do-ocracy and consensus in balance), confidence in distributed authority ("we are the ones"), and rejection of informal hierarchy ("no center exists").

In other words:

When you see harm, you don't need permission to act. You need courage to claim the authority you already have, and discipline to defend your decision to the community.

References

1. Freeman, Jo. "The Tyranny of Structurelessness." 1970. Available at: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
2. Bakunin, Mikhail. "What is Authority?" 1871.
3. Landauer, Gustav. "Revolution and Other Writings." 1911.
4. Sitrin, Marina and Dario Azzellini. "They Can't Represent Us! Reinventing Democracy from Greece to Occupy." 2014.
5. Levine, Cathy. "The Tyranny of Tyranny." 1979. Montgomery, Nick and carla bergman. "Joyful Militancy: Building Thriving Resistance in Toxic Times." 2017.
6. Kropotkin, Peter. "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution." 1902.