Comparing Accessism to other cybernetic initiatives

Some people have asked us on Discord how we are different from various other cybernetics related ideologies and organizations, especially those on the left.

Cyber-socialism

Cyber-socialism refers to a theoretical fusion of cybernetics (the science of control and communication in systems, often involving feedback loops and data-driven decision-making) with socialist principles.

While definitely the closest ideology on the left to us, there are significant differences that need to be taken into account.

Things in common with cyber-socialism:

–Critique of capitalism and profit-motive:

Just like them, and for similar reasons to cyber-socialists, and others on the far-left, we are of course opposed to capitalism, and it’s destructive effects upon humanity and the natural world.

We also share the critique of cyber-socialists who argue markets are inefficient compared to algorithmic planning, and we add to it the devastating impact automation will have upon the working class.

–Equitable Redistribution Without Profit or Debt:

Like socialists more broadly, we fight for a world where human needs are met as a baseline right, in a way similar to socialist goals of decommodifying essentials.

Cyber-socialism often advocates computational models to ensure “from each according to ability, to each according to need”, and while we don’t frame it in such a way, we agree with the broader principle of ensuring everyone’s daily livelihood is met.

–Data-Driven Planning for Post-Scarcity:

We also consider the use of a cybernetics in economic planning to be the most powerful and objective tool we have to create a true real-time prosperous planned economy.

How Accessism Isn’t Cyber-socialism

–Lack of Marxist framework:

Cyber-socialism, due to it’s heritage deriving from Marx’s works, is deeply rooted in Marxist theory, using cybernetics to “fix” socialism’s calculation problem.

This, of course, informs how it views everything socially and politically, from labor and class-based analysis of society, to electoral and political strategies, and it’s relation to broader anti-capitalist and/or political scene.

Accessism, by contrast, doesn’t base it’s theory into labor-based value calculation, labor vouchers, SUVM(socially useful value metrics) or other metrics of cyber-socialist theory.

It believes using labor as the measure of value to be backwards, inefficient and counter-productive.

It’s only standard should be resource availability and it’s efficient, real-time planning and use.

Accessism considers the struggle for a better future through cybernetic planning to be inseparable from the struggle for automation, so in many ways in opposition to the socialist goal of a worker-owned economy, since the working class becomes increasingly small and hard to define in an automated economy.

–Decentralization Over Centralization:

Cyber-socialist theories seem to frequently rely on hierarchical, state-like cybernetic controls (e.g., Cybersyn’s telex network for national coordination), while we believe in embedding decentralization and participatory checks to prevent tyranny.

Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC)

FALC is a recent development, popularized by Aaron Bastani in his 2019 manifesto Fully Automated Luxury Communism, and envisions a post-capitalist society where radical technological advancements, such as automation, AI, renewable energy, and asteroid mining, unlock unprecedented abundance.

It argues that these innovations can resolve capitalism’s inherent contradictions, delivering “luxury” (high-quality, universal access to goods, experiences, and leisure) without the need for wage labor or scarcity-driven markets.

In many ways, FALC is even more similar to accessism, though it inherits the above mentioned similarities and differences between us and cyber-socialism.

However, there are certain things that draw us both closer and farther away.

Things in common with FALC:

–Post-Scarcity Abundance via Technology:

FALC and Accessism both are ardent believers of automation’s potential to produce plenty for all, rendering traditional work obsolete and enabling a life of leisure or creative pursuit, while mirroring FALC’s vision of AI and robotics delivering universal luxury without markets.

–Decommodification and Anti-Work Ethos:

We both wish to eliminate bills, debt, and wage dependency, framing essentials (and beyond) as rights rather than commodities.
This aligns our dream of a anxiety-free lifestyle with FALC’s “luxury for the masses” concept.

–Optimism About Innovation:

We both believe science and technology should be the guiding principles and tools to achieve a glorious post-scarcity future, one worthy of being called civilization in the 21st century.

How Accessism Isn’t FALC

–Ideology:

Just like above, the C in FALC is explicitly communist, rooted in Marxist analysis of capitalism’s productive forces leading to socialism, with a revolutionary angle of the proletariat seizing the means of production and whatnot.

We, however, do not share any of that framework, and, as mentioned above, actually consider it counter-productive to achieving a post-capitalist economy.

–Scope and Emphasis:

While a great perspective shift, FALC speculates over expansive abundance (e.g., space travel, infinite energy), which sometimes leads to them glossing over sustainability, while we believe in first providing access to essentials, within the limits of the carrying capacity of the Earth, via the use of existing tools.

Technocracy Inc.

The original North American technocratic movement founded by Howard Scott, active mainly in the 1930s and 1940s.

Things in common with Technocracy Inc.:

–Complete replacement of the monetary/price system:

We share their critique that the price system is wasteful and irrational, and should be replaced with scientific accounting, even if we disagree with their idea of “energy certificates”.

–The primacy of empirical proof and skills:

We share the belief that those who can apply science and engineering to social concerns should have primacy in designing and running the system(though the people ultimately decide democratically), not politicians or capitalists.

–The creation of a technological planetary skin:

We both believe our decision making should be enhanced by continental or planetary scale planning using the best technology and sensors available at the time.

How Accessism Isn’t Technocracy Inc.:

–Democracy:

Technocracy Inc. was explicitly anti-democratic, advocating permanent rule by a technocratic elite with no elections or public input.

We fight for rotating leadership, liquid democracy, local veto rights, and full participatory governance.

–Federalism:

Technocracy Inc. demanded a single, highly centralized continental “Technate” under one rigid organizational chart. We are federated and decentralized by unbreakable design principles.

–Transparency:

Technocracy Inc. had uniforms, ranks, secrecy, and a quasi-military structure. Everything we produce or collaborate on is open-source, public domain, and freely forkable.

–Anti-apocalypticism:

Technocracy Inc. wished to wait for total societal collapse on the North American continent before imposing their system in one leap.

We wish to be in the political arena now, and are helping develop cybernetic planning models at this moment, so even should society collapse, the people know what the alternative is.

The Venus Project / Other Resource-Based Economy Projects

Our most direct predecessor, founded by Jacque Fresco in 1995 as the public-facing continuation of his decades-long Sociocyberneering project, dedicated to designing and promoting a global cybernetic, fully automated, moneyless “resource-based economy” in which the Earth’s resources are declared the common heritage of all people and managed solely by science and technology.

After Fresco’s passing in 2017, the organisation underwent significant internal changes that led to our separation.

The direction taken by the remaining leadership diverged from the original mission in ways that made continued collaboration untenable, as well as it’s it’s technological beliefs becoming outdated, then hostile to open-source development, decentralized governance, and active political implementation of the ideas.

Things in common with The Venus Project:

–Cybernetic, automated, moneyless economy:

Just like the Venus Project, we envision a fully automated economy using real-time cybernetic systems to replace money, barter, trade, debt, and servitude of any kind.

–Resources declared the common heritage of all inhabitants of Earth:

We fully accept Fresco’s declaration that the Earth’s resources belong to all people and must never be commodified or used for private profit.

-Science, not ideology:

We believe in the direct application of the scientific method and technology to social concerns, and not the dogma-like use of political ideology.

How Accessism Isn’t The Venus Project:

–Anti personality cult:

TVP was built entirely around the lifelong, unquestioned authority of Jacque Fresco and later Roxanne Meadows.

We will push for term limits, recallable delegates, and explicit anti-cult bylaws, since no individual is above the movement.

–Open and copyleft:

TVP aggressively copyrighted and trademarked designs, lectures, and even the phrase “Resource-Based Economy,” threatening or shutting down independent chapters. Every line of Accessist code, every blueprint, and every document is released under CC-0 or MIT/GPL from day one.

-Politically active, not quietist and apocalyptic:

TVP declared itself apolitical and waited decades for global collapse and mass awakening.
We are an openly political movement that wishes to run candidates and fight for funding and policy change today.

-Trial and error, not waiting for perfection–

TVP produced renderings, models, and tours for half a century but never built a single working prototype.
Accessism mandates measurable, iterative pilots at local scale first when implementing accessism, therefor results before rhetoric.

In summary:

Accessism keeps the core differentiating ideas of these projects:

• Cybernetic planning
• Full automation
• Universal Access
• No money
• Science as benchmark for policy