In my personal experience it really depend on what you are trying to build but most of the time it ends in the party/collective/space expelling the person from it. What can make this process less dramatic and damaging is the organizational culture you have in the space or the party. For example, in the organization that i´m part of when we reunite, all men are required to help in some domestic(cleaning, cooking or preparing the room for the meeting) and organizing(taking notes on the meeting/discussion, being the mediator of the meeting/discussion[1] and so on) task because we have perceived that this is a way to make the woman in the organization participate more actively in the discussions and we as an organization want them to participate more on these discussions. So we have a culture of doing that and for some time it has been a self-reinforcing thing. So if i stopped doing it, my comrades would call my attention to it and if i really took a stand against it, i would probably be kicked out of the organization. My hypothetical exit would galvanize no one because we have been doing this specific thing for a long time and everybody agrees that we should keep doing it.

In short: I don´t have a definitive answer but a good guess would be organizational culture. We, humans are very social species and take a lot of cues from the people around us and if we are able to create a good organizational culture in a space/party/collective people will mostly follow it. That said,it is hard to create a good organizational culture, people in the org or the space really need to want to make it happen but once it is create it is easier(or less harder) to keep.

[1] Counting and signaling the time that one has to speak, keeping the meeting on track, etc.

There's also always people willing to fix it for others too

I'm not saying that they can't. However, I think your definition of centralization and mine must vary. Appointing a committee in my book is centralization and thus minarchism.

I asked this in a thread a while ago but I'll repost it here since I never got an answer:

[I don't see how anarchism] would work in practice. Hierarchies form to simplify the logistics and social cohesion of a disorganized network of subunits.

As a basic example, how the hell do collectives even communicate with those on other continents? It took millenia for humans to develop reliable seafaring technology, only made possible through the direction of state actors. Sea cables cost millions to maintain; satellite communication is even harder to achieve.

Assuming that any of these could even be accomplished strictly via collectives ("Why the hell should I give you my Chilean copper so you can throw it in the ocean to talk to Europe?"), operating these essential services gives access to power and coercion.

Somebody has to launch the ships or run the heart of the telegraph network. Will you centralize the authority of multiple collectives to regulate and monitor it?...

And if you don't do anything to bridge the ocean, what's to prevent ideological drift for that continent; getting a little too centralized for more efficient resource use? Even if your accessible web remains strong and ideologically pure, you have to pray that completely separate webs will be just as strong.

Anarcho-primitivism is the only critique that seems to own the inherent anti-civilization logic, but even then there's nothing stopping a collective-of-collectives from making a bigger pile of sharp rocks to subjugate you.

The gist of it being that hierarchies form due to the natural gravitation of civilization towards efficiency. Delegating someone with power to direct the actions of a large group will always be more efficient than getting N subunits to reach a web of equilibrium. If you've ever tried to horizontally coordinate a group of a large size it's pretty obvious.

Efficiency begets power and power propogates and entrenches the system that it's derived from.

I would love to live in a society that is set up this way. I saw a recent study about inequality challenging the conventional wisdom that it is inevitable, here on lemmy actually. Dunno if thats one of the reasons for this post. But I certainly think its worth asking is the way we do things now the best way? Probably not, just because we do stuff the way we do now doesn't mean it must be done that way. I personally am in favor of governments where the responsibility is given to small groups of people who rotate into positions for some length of time. It would just be randomly chosen people from society at large. It's been done in the past, and it seems like a great way to keep a small group from concentrating power and misusing it. Also makes it so ordinary people are making the decisions, so less likely to make malaligned choices that are bad for the rest of society. Whether that is a flat structure, or a vertical structure is certainly up for debate.

To preface, I'm a Marxist and not an Anarchist, our frameworks differ substantially.

I agree that "but what about bad actors" criticism is quite bad, but for different reasons. They don't "spawn in" out of nowhere and ruin systems, the opposite is the case - it's the system that produces them through inequalities, ideology and reward mechanisms. Capitalism rewards antisocial, domineering behavior because competition, capital and power accumulation demands it in order to "be successful". This is something inherent to the system and its structures, not something you can fix simply by moral policing, so focusing just on the individual is a mistake.

The vertical power structures like the state aren't there merely for individual power hoarding, but rather it's a structure of class domination - the bourgeoisie control over proletariat. Enforcement and protection of private property (such as factories/company offices/other means of production), legal systems controlling who gets into power and what they can change, education and media promoting the status quo are but a few examples of this. The state isn't merely there to preserve itself, it's there to preserve the capitalist system.