Book Review: Lifehouse - Taking Care of Ourselves in a World on Fire by Adam Greenfield

I want to live in the world where this book is true.

But I think I'm too cynical.

Adam Greenfield has expertly diagnosed the problem we're all about to face. With ecological collapse comes societal breakdown. This "failure cascade" will bring unimaginable suffering. What can we do to give mutual aid and help save ourselves and our communities? The answer is building a series of "Lifehouses"; community hubs which can serve as a way to re-invigorate local decision making, give aid to those who need it, and provide resources to stricken communities.

Greenfield whizzes through the various mutual aid initiatives which have sprung up over the the last few decades - and the political philosophy which underpins them. Whether it's Black Panthers, the various Occupy Xs, or the collectivist agreements in parts of Spain and Syria - the answer is coming together in defiance of the state's bureaucratic and sclerotic response.

But all of these movements eventually failed.

Volunteerism relies on an unsustainable supply of free labour. It is beset by internal strife, burnout, and lack of resources. People like their comfortable and bourgeois lives - cosplaying as a relief worker eventually becomes tiresome. As he correctly points out, the State has "opinions" about those who try to subvert it. Opinions which often end with deadly consequences.

The book has a constant refrain that mutual aid isn't charity. But I was left unclear on what the difference is. Perhaps it is communities applying their local biases rather than the cold rationality of of a charity board? At one point, he describes the success of a mutual aid project as:

Nobody made you fill out paperwork just to prove that you were who you said you were.

The reason why bureaucracies form is that there isn't an inexhaustible supply of materials to hand out. As Doctorow said, "All Complex Ecosystems Have Parasites". In an emergency, you can afford to give succour to anyone who shows up at your door. But once the grifters, liggers, and abusers show up, you need a way to prioritise the genuinely needy.

Similarly, he notes that once a mutual aid society became successful it became formalised. A process described as:

this was a blatant land grab: an attempt to co-opt the energy of their movement, drain it of its revolutionary content and reassert the normalcy of business as usual under a shallow mask of left authenticity.

I just don't think a permanent revolution is sustainable; people get tired. Running everything as an emergency is exhausting and, in my opinion, self-defeating. As the book gets deeper into political theory (which is both interesting and reasonably accessible), it begins discussing how people's assemblies can work in order to facilitate decision making. But, again, another flaw is revealed:

Lynn Sanders noted that not everyone necessarily had the ability, the time or simply the inclination to participate deliberatively

There's a reason why we elect various levels of politicians and hire civil servants. Decision making is time-consuming, difficult, and boring. I don't want to sit in another endless bike-shedding meeting. If you've ever attended a meeting about how to run a block of flats, you know the existential terror of unfettered communal decision making.

Amongst the many things I don't understand, is the insistence against all evidence that people will respect the institution of the Lifehouse.

And this is precisely what the Lifehouse offers. What the newly established neighborhood assembly will have direct, unambiguous control over is everything that attends the management of a community resilience-and-resourcefulness hub: all the inputs it requires, all the resources it generates and all of the questions that arise in the course of its daily operation.

But how does it have control? Max Weber defined the state as a political institution with a monopoly of violence. The state can threaten you with imprisonment, monetary fines, and withholding of privileged - all backed up with police, guns, and an army. What tools does a Lifehouse have?

Another unaddressed point is how a Lifehouse gets its supplies. In a world with functioning logistics supply chains, hubs are useful. Once those break down, there's a limit to what a 3D printer, CNC machine, and hydroponic garden can produce.

Even trying to produce food on a small scale is ridiculously inefficient. Not only does a sustainable food supply need a huge amount of labour, it also relies on supplies of fertiliser, biocides, medicines, and processing equipment.

The book ends with a message that global problems can't be solved by the same forces which have led to them. An argument I have a great deal of sympathy with. Our leaders want big technocratic solutions to problems and:

All they ask of us is that we continue to consume, continue to live in isolation from one another, continue our complicity in the churn that gave rise to the storms to begin with.

The problem is that, as far as I can understand it, a commune can't produce massive subsidies for solar panel factories. It can't enact the massive changes needed to decarbonise the grid. A Lifehouse will never introduce free cross-country public transit. Nor will it stop the marauders at the gate when they come armed and ready to plunder.

I want to live in a world where there is a Lifehouse in every community - and it is a welcoming space with the resources available to help bring people together and change our world for the better.

The great secret of Occupy Sandy is that being part of it felt wonderful.

I think that's what this book is about. Hope.

A Lifehouse isn't necessarily about changing the world. It is about rediscovering that people can help each other and, when we try, can build better communities.