---
title: "Avoiding Burnout: Sustainability in the Ruins"
description: "Building a practice of resistance that doesn't consume you"
author: "Author name"
date: "2025-08-12"
related:
  - "resolving-active-conflicts"
  - "integrating-new-members-without-dilution"
  - "how-chaos-concentrates-control"
thumbnail:
  vertical: "avoiding-burnout-sustainability-in-the-ruins-vertical.svg"
  horizontal: "avoiding-burnout-sustainability-in-the-ruins-horizontal.svg"
background:
  color: "#FFE8DC"
---

The pattern repeats itself across every worker coop, mutual aid network, and organizing project. Someone who was essential suddenly stops showing up. They apologize, say they need to step back, talk about self-care and boundaries. Everyone nods sympathetically. The work gets redistributed to whoever's left. Six months later, someone else burns out. The cycle continues.

We've learned to treat burnout as an individual problem requiring individual solutions. Take a break. Practice self-care. Set boundaries. Prioritize your mental health. This framing is everywhere, and it's almost entirely useless. Not because self-care is bad, but because it locates the problem in the individual rather than in the conditions that produce exhaustion as a constant state.

Burnout in activist spaces isn't a personal failure. It's a political symptom. Specifically, it's what happens when capitalist temporality infiltrates movements that claim to oppose capitalism.

Capitalist time operates in resistance spaces in a specific way: endless acceleration, perpetual crisis, the elimination of rest as a category. There's always more to do, more to respond to, more urgency. The logic of productivity infects everything. If you're not constantly doing, you're not committed. If you're not sacrificing yourself, you don't really care.

This temporality gets imported wholesale into resistance movements. The world is burning, people are suffering, we can't afford to slow down. Anyone who suggests limits or sustainability gets accused of not understanding the urgency. The person who works themselves into the ground becomes the model of commitment.

The result is predictable. Your most dedicated people destroy themselves. They leave, taking years of knowledge and relationships with them. New people step up, replicate the same patterns, and burn out in turn. The movement doesn't grow, it churns. Meanwhile, the systems you're fighting remain perfectly intact, staffed by people working forty-hour weeks with healthcare and retirement plans.

This isn't strategy, it's self-sabotage dressed up as virtue. And it will continue until we build structures that make sustainability possible rather than treating it as a personal responsibility.

Rotation as structure means that if the same people are always doing the critical work, burnout isn't a risk, it's a timeline. You're just waiting to see who collapses first.

This feels wrong to people raised on the myth of indispensability. What if the new person isn't as good at it? What if things slip? These are real concerns, but they reveal the problem. If your group can't survive someone rotating out of a role, you don't have an organization, you have a house of cards.

Rotation forces knowledge distribution. The person leaving a role has to document what they did and train their replacement. This is when you discover that half of what made something work was informal knowledge living in one person's head. Get it out of their head. Write it down. Make it teachable.

Rotation also prevents the accumulation of informal power. The person who's always been the treasurer starts to feel ownership over financial decisions. The person who always coordinates meetings starts shaping what gets discussed. This isn't malicious, it's structural. Rotation disrupts it.

Set the schedule in advance. You're not rotating people out because they're failing, you're rotating them because that's how the system works. This removes the stigma and the guilt. Everyone knows from the start that roles are temporary.

Documentation isn't optional, it's infrastructure. Every role needs a guide: what it involves, how to do it, what to watch out for. When someone learns something important, it gets added to the guide. When someone rotates out, they update it with everything they learned.

Run regular retrospectives, not as therapy but as knowledge capture. Every few months, sit down and discuss what worked, what didn't, what you learned. Write it down. This becomes your institutional memory, accessible to anyone who needs it.

The person who's leaving needs to do a handoff. Not just "here's the password," but sitting down with their replacement for however long it takes to transfer what they know. This is part of the role, not an optional kindness. If you can't make time for handoffs, you can't actually rotate roles.

Limiting scope is something groups avoid because it feels like admitting defeat, but here it is: you cannot do everything. Trying to do everything guarantees you'll do nothing well and burn out everyone involved.

Define what you're actually trying to accomplish. Be specific. Not "fight capitalism" but "provide food assistance to fifty families in the neighborhood" or "support workers organizing in the service industry" or "maintain this piece of software that solves this specific problem." Scope that's too broad becomes an excuse for unlimited work.

When something falls outside that scope, the answer is no. Not "we'll try to fit it in," not "maybe later," but no. This is impossible for people who've internalized the idea that saying no means you don't care. You have to care selectively or you'll care yourself into complete ineffectiveness.

Urgency is constant under capitalism. There will always be another crisis, another person who needs help, another fight that demands attention. If your response is always yes, you're not building a movement, you're building a machine that consumes people.

Rest as strategy is the hardest thing to accept because rest isn't something you earn after the work is done. The work is never done. Rest has to be structural, built into how you operate, or it won't happen.

Schedule breaks into your calendar the same way you schedule meetings. Not "take a break when you need it" no one ever needs it until they're already destroyed. Monthly week-long breaks where nothing happens. Quarterly weekend retreats that aren't about work. Built-in downtime between major projects.

Normalize people being unavailable. If someone says they can't take something on, that's the end of the discussion. No guilt, no pressure, no subtle implications that they're not committed enough. The person who protects their capacity is more valuable than the person who destroys themselves.

Building structures for sustainability isn't about being nice to ourselves. It's about building movements that can actually win. That means rotation so knowledge spreads and no one becomes indispensable. That means preserving institutional memory so learning accumulates. That means limiting scope so the work remains possible. That means treating rest as strategy, not weakness.

Rotation means no role is permanent. The person coordinating meetings, managing the budget, maintaining relationships with allied groups, running the communication channels all of it rotates on a set schedule. Six months, a year, whatever makes sense for the role and the group.

Preserving institutional memory becomes critical when someone burns out and leaves, because they take everything they learned with them. How to navigate specific relationships. What strategies failed before. Why certain decisions were made. The new person starts from zero, makes the same mistakes, learns the same lessons. The group never accumulates knowledge, it just cycles through individuals.

Maintain a history document. Not meeting minutes, but narrative. Why did you start focusing on this issue? What was the context for that major decision? What conflicts came up and how did you work through them? New people need this to understand why things are the way they are.

Set actual limits on meeting times, on how many projects you take on, on what you expect from participants. Two hours for meetings, not whenever people run out of steam. Three active projects, not whatever comes up. One meeting per week, not whenever something urgent appears.

Celebrate the person who steps back before they burn out, not the person who pushes through until they collapse. Right now we do the opposite. We venerate sacrifice and treat boundaries as suspect. This has to invert.

Why this matters is clear: treating burnout as individual failure serves power perfectly. It ensures that resistance movements constantly lose their most experienced people. It prevents the accumulation of knowledge and relationships. It makes organizing seem impossible to anyone with responsibilities or limitations. It turns politics into a game that only the young, unencumbered, or self-destructive can play.

The alternative is what we have now: an endless cycle of people burning bright and flaming out, while the systems we oppose continue grinding forward, staffed by people who go home at five and take vacations. We can do better. We have to.
