Author: admin

We Take Our Seat: The Accessist International Assumes the Mantle of the Fifth International

Post author By admin
Post date December 20, 2025
No Comments on We Take Our Seat: The Accessist International Assumes the Mantle of the Fifth International

“Professor… what are your political principles?”

“May I first ask yours? If you can state them?”

“Certainly I can! I’m a Fifth Internationalist, most of the Organization is… But I’m no Marxist; we Fifths have a practical program.

–Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

For centuries, the abuses and inherent contradictions of capitalism have necessitated the organization of anti-capitalist resistance.

Since Capital recognizes no borders, resistance can only be effective through internationalism, which results in the creation of global political federations committed to the interests of humanity over self-interested greed and profit.

While many others have emerged, including our own, until today, four anti-capitalist organizations have defined the political struggle against Capital, and have become what are seen as THE Internationals.

The Historical Evolution of the Internationals

Each of these four anti-capitalist Internationals, which will be detailed below, were created as a response to the socio-economic realities of its time, representing an ideological and organizational break that addressed the shortcomings of its forerunners.

Their genesis shows the continuous evolution of anti-capitalist thought by various internationals to changing conditions, but also their failure to defeat the biggest challenge of their epoch:

International	Period	Key Breakthrough	Overcame	Ultimate Limitation (The Failure)
First International (1864–1876)	Early Industrialism	Global platform for proletarian unity; prioritizing class consciousness.	Isolated national struggles and craft unions	Organizational Fragility: Loose, federal structure and internal splits (Marxists vs. Anarchists).
Second International (1889–1916)	Mass Movement Era	Created structured mass socialist parties and utilized parliamentary politics.	Ad-hoc depth of the First	Reformist Betrayal: Failure to prevent nationalist co-option and support for World War I.
Third International (1919–1943)	Revolutionary Vanguard	Centralized revolutionary strategy; disciplined, anti-imperialist tactics.	Second’s reformism and nationalism	Bureaucratic Degeneration: Succumbed to tyranny and subservience to Soviet state interests.
Fourth International (1938–present)	Anti-Stalinist Resistance	Preserved authentic anti-bureaucratic Marxism; developed transitional demands.	Third’s bureaucratic caste	Sectarian Decay: Chronic fragmentation and isolation from mass bases, reducing its impact.

The Fourth’s fragmented nature has led to repeated calls for a new, final Fifth International, to lead the elements of anti-capitalism to victory.

The attempts at a Fifth International

The following summary matches with the summary one can find on Wikipedia¹, which seems to have captured the important moments of these attempts pretty well.

Period	Authors	Events	Ideological current	Fate
1938-1941	Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification activists, Argentine Trotskyist Liborio Justo	Campaigning for a fifth, after internal disagreements	Trotskyism	Brief proclamations, no follow through
1965	Lyndon LaRouche	Call made after leaving the Spartacist League in 1965²	LaRouche Movement	No follow through, while the movement itself drifted towards far-right insanity
1994, 2003	Movement for a Socialist Future(MfSF), League for the Fifth International(L5I)	“Fifth International of Communists” proclaimed by MfSF, while the “League for a Revolutionary Communist International” renamed to L5I, and demanded the creation of the fifth “as soon as possible – not in the distant future but in the months and years ahead”³	Trotskyism	MfSF became defunct as a political party, L5I merged into the International Socialist League in December 2025⁴
2009	Hugo Chavez	Called for a Fifth International based on anti-Western socialist solidarity, especially in Latin America⁵. Critically supported by L5I.⁶	Bolivarianism	Limited support, no further developments, Venezuela currently under massive economic strain, and possible regime collapse due to Trump’s imperialistic destabilization against Maduro in the Caribbean⁷
2015	Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement(RAIM)	Proposal of a maoist-third worldist Fifth International⁸	Maoism–Third Worldism	RAIM defunct⁹, so any plans moot
2012(Half-serious)	Fifth International(@5thComintern)	X account¹⁰	Marxist-leninism	Defunct
2020(Half-serious)	Fifth International(@Antifatm)	X account¹¹	Anarchism	Defunct

In summary, especially since the start of this millennium, it seems all the significant anti-capitalist schools of thought(except perhaps the more fringe left-communism) have attempted to forge their own Fifth International, yet they were never able to move beyond their labor-based horizon.

Ironically, Marx himself glimpsed this horizon in his vision of communism as the ‘realm of freedom,’ where labor’s necessity yields to free development, a post-scarcity society beyond class and state.¹²

Yet Marxism, confined to industrial scarcity, never crossed that threshold.

This is a proof of the old adage from Jacque Fresco, that “When growth limits are met in an environment or system, we either break through, emerge and evolve, or die”.

Accessism is, however, this necessary rupture, realizing Marx’s dream through cybernetic abundance, where automation and AI dissolve necessity not through dialectical struggle, but through technological transcendence.

Delving into why they failed

As mentioned, each international was born out of an ideological breakthrough, aimed at conquering limitations in the previous ones, one lacking when gathering forces for a fifth.

One can see that plans for a Fifth International have not gone anywhere simply because there was no differentiating factor for its creation.

All have been stuck in endless variations of attempts at building a “true workers’ party” that will “fearlessly fight” for the proletariat through Marxist ideological purity, transitional demands, united fronts, and anti-sectarian regroupment.

Marxism’s historical role was to articulate liberation under industrial scarcity. Its categories were optimized for a world where labor was central.

That world is ending.¹³

Why class warfare is no longer the axis of liberation

In an economy run by machines and artificial intelligence, that framework is now useless, even harmful, since it produces the same steep hierarchies that capitalism does.

When production grows automatic, work drifts away from people, and shifts towards algorithms, robots and cybernetic systems design, build, but also move goods with almost no help from human hands.

Grabbing “the factories” would not give power to the many, but it would hand power to a handful of technicians, programmers and administrators who grasp the intricate networks.

That small group would turn into the new “bosses.”

They would decide who receives what using knowledge as the key instead of property deeds, and the old inequalities would survive beneath a socialist label.

History offers examples, where the Soviet Union’s technocrats, alongside China’s state planners took command, yet workers stayed shut out of every important choice.

Accessism avoids that trap, since it insists on open cybernetic data as well as on direct democratic governance open to all, so abundance reaches everyone without a human gatekeeper.

Why socialism lost

There is a profound irony here: fighting for the working class in an era where automation is gutting the working class is inherently counter-productive.

As jobs vanish and labor becomes redundant, clinging to class warfare perpetuates a labor mindset that delays the very abundance technology promises.

The subject of Accessism is not a class defined by labor, but all those excluded from access to the systems that govern their lives, be they users, residents, caregivers, creators, the unemployed, the automated-away, and the yet-unborn

A cybernetic economy thrives precisely by automating more and more, generating increasingly objective data for efficient allocation, free from the tamper-prone subjectivity of bureaucratic reports, five-year plans, market whims.

Just as the Soviet Union’s OGAS (Nationwide Automated System for Computation and Control) was suffocated under Marxist bureaucracy, fearing loss of party control, today’s anti-capitalist struggles must recognize that true liberation lies in embracing automation, not resisting it.

In many ways, the fight against capitalism is a fight for automation, and, paradoxically, against Marxism and its principles, which remain tethered to labor-centric myths unfit for our abundant future.

Accessism does not deny that labor yet persists; it denies that labor must remain the organizing principle of society as it’s being phased out.

Objections that under a socialist economy automation would serve the working class ring hollow, for history tells a different story.

Socialist states and cooperatives were structurally constrained from shorter shifts or superior technological adoption compared to their capitalist counterparts, even when automation was in their direct interest, to ease workloads and boost productivity.

Instead, they prioritized full employment and industrial retention, fearing unemployment’s social unrest.

One need only witness the Soviet Union’s resistance to the cybernetic reforms of OGAS, or Eastern Bloc co-ops clinging to manual labor to prove that point.

Capitalist societies, driven by profit, invested heavily in transistors, robots, and computers, inadvertently planting the seeds of their own obsolescence through automation’s rise.

A new beginning

Sadly, the results of this paradoxical positioning of the two sides towards automation are clear.

An ever more devouring and ecologically destructive capitalism that is simply less and less able to provide the average citizen housing, healthcare and education off a regular paycheck, while making it more and more difficult to even find a job to earn a paycheck.¹⁴

Meanwhile, the only opposition to it has been a second international that has been long ago broken and co-opted, a third international that died more than 80 years ago, a fourth that is shattered beyond recognition, and a fifth’s whose midwives have died still waiting for their child to be born.

And with the last of these children ending up stillborn, via the dissolution of the League for the Fifth International into the International Socialist League¹⁵, the chair of the Fifth International is now empty, ready to be occupied by an ideology fit for the automated, AI-driven 21st century.

And the Accessist International now claims that mantle.

As the market fails to provide for a population it no longer employs, the Accessist International demands the transition of these ‘ghost industries’ into the public cybernetic commons, rather than letting them be scrapped or bailed out.

Accessism’s Core Tenets—the Program of the Fifth

An open-access, cybernetic economy:
The creation of an automated, planned, open-source economy, using cybernetics as it’s guiding principle for production and distribution.
Techno-liberation:
The use of scientific progress toward the emancipation of all life, human and non-human, in a democratic and liberatory manner.
In-built decentralized governance:
Open-source algorithms, real-time feedback and democratic participation, so that the degeneration Trotsky warned of can never take root.
The long-term elimination of obsolete systems(money, wage-labour, the state):
All replaced by intelligent resource orchestration that serves need, not power.
The restoration of the environment, and the integration of planetary carrying capacity into economic models:
The integration of ecology into our planning models, such as the cybernetic “economic geography” of Nikolai Veduta and the Novosibirsk Institute.

Radicalized Transitional Program of Accessism

As a worthy sequel to Trotsky’s transitional demands in the fourth international, we have updated and radicalized them for an automated age, transforming scarcity-bound bridges into immediate leaps toward abundance.

We dare to go further, demanding not incremental relief but the full dissolution of labor’s chains.

From Permanent Revolution to Permanent Cybernetic Evolution:
We demand and push for the use of cybernetics and AI in order to automate as much of the labor of workers as possible, to free humanity from toil, and eliminate scarcity as much as possible.
From Defense of deformed workers states to Defense of Cybernetic Gains:
We critically acknowledge and defend the achievements in economic planning and cybernetic economics made by our predecessors, and use them as building blocks for our systems.
We also support any modern initiative that builds upon them, as can be seen on our website.
From Opening the Books to Opening the Algorithms: We demand all our systems and their documentation, especially the ones that are economically planning the economy, to be under open-source licenses, to prevent any bureaucratic caste from being able to hijack it.
From Sliding Scale of Wages to Universal Abundance Dividend:
Trotsky’s automatic wage adjustments against inflation become our demand to replace wages for displaced workers with either UBI, or a cybernetically-calculated, needs-based dividend, ultimately replacing wages with direct, tamper-proof access to resources.
From the Six-Hour Day to the Zero-Hour Working Day: Trotsky foresaw technical progress shortening labor time until wage slavery ends.
The goal for our age is to demand it’s total abolition.
From Expropriation of Key Industries to Seizing the Infrastructure of Failure:
As companies and infrastructure collapse as we reach the Convergence Point¹⁶, we demand their placement under the management of this automated, cybernetic network, to provide life’s necessities for every human.
From Workers’ Militia to Cybernetic Community-Controlled Defense:
We fully expect the forces of totalitarianism, be they fascist autocracies, corporate powers, religious fanatics or red states to come to blows with us eventually, so we see the self-defense of these communities as non-negotiable.
From ideological to technological Solidarity and Anti-Imperialism:
We stand against the exploitation of the Global South and it’s resources, and push for the share of technology and aid to provide for the most affected.
The creation of a planetary skin:
We demand the creation of a planetary system of sensors to share real-time objective data on any changes in the environment, similar to how they are currently used to track emissions and deforestation, to preventing greenwashing, and using them as input to automatically adjust the cybernetic plan.

Unlike tamperable plans, objective data resists manipulation, and unlike ideological dogma, scientific knowledge and cybernetics are free to evolve and find the best way of providing a limitless future for everyone, since “when education and resources are available to all without a price tag, there will be no limit to the human potential.”

Accessism does not abolish political struggle, it relocates it into system design, oversight, and revision.

And for that, we invite you, as individuals, collectives, existing political organizations, and national parties aligned with the vision of cybernetic abundance and techno-liberation, to join the struggle.

Form new Accessist chapters in your countries, cities, and communities.

Graft your groups, parties, or movements onto our emerging structure as affiliated national sections.

Together, we will build the Accessist International as a federated global force: democratic, decentralized, and dedicated to transcending scarcity through open cybernetic systems.

The chair of the Fifth International stands empty no longer, it awaits the forces of the automated future.

For the liberation of humanity from scarcity,
For the liberation of the Earth from exploitation,
For the liberation of life, both human and non-human, from the commodity form.

Long live the Fifth International of Access.
Because Liberation begins with Access.

Uncategorized

Comparing Accessism to other cybernetic initiatives

Post author By admin
Post date December 8, 2025
No Comments on 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

But our analysis of history led us to ruthlessly remove the Marxist baggage of cyber-socialism and FALC, the authoritarian elitism of Technocracy Inc., and the personality cult, copyright cage, and political passivity of The Venus Project.

We are post-leftist, radically decentralized, fully open-source, politically active, and obsessed with real-world pilots, a combination that has not existed before.

And this combination is what makes Accessism new, and, as we believe, viable, as the only ideology which is prepared for the challenges of the automated, AI-driven 21st century.

Uncategorized

Join the Center for Cybernomics Research (CCR)!

Post author By admin
Post date December 4, 2025
No Comments on Join the Center for Cybernomics Research (CCR)!

We have a message from one of our partners, for anyone who truly wants to build the software that will run the economy’s operating system:
“Join CCR, a research institution focusing on organisational cybernetics and cybernetic economics (cybernomics). There are many ongoing projects there and it has published research papers too!

Discord server for CCR:- https://discord.gg/PXH8ZRMCfX

Email:- centerforcybernomicsresearch@gmail.com

If you have any research idea, or a research draft, reach us out and we can collaborate on it! We can even publish your research papers in good journals!

Anyone can join us and start a new project on anything (related to cybernetics). You can also submit your articles, essays etc. to us which we will publish!”

Uncategorized

Cybernetic planning in economics – a brief history

Post author By admin
Post date November 26, 2025
No Comments on Cybernetic planning in economics – a brief history

Often the difference between a successful man and a failure is not one’s better abilities or ideas, but the courage that one has to bet on his ideas, to take a calculated risk — and to act.
Maxwell Maltz

The story of cybernetic economic planning in the first half of the 20th century is not one of technical failure, but of repeated sabotage by ideology, faction, and power.

It is a tragic chronicle of brilliant minds who reached for abundance, only to be crushed under the weight of the very systems they tried to serve.

1. Oskar Lange and the Ghost of Market Socialism

Oskar Lange, a Polish economist and committed Marxist, was the first to see the potential of computation to solve the socialist calculation problem.

In 1936–38 he proposed that planners could simulate market prices through iterative trial-and-error equations, an early feedback loop.

By the 1950s, with the first electronic computers arriving in Eastern Europe, Lange’s ideas could have evolved into real-time cybernetic adjustment.

They never did.

The Polish Marxist establishment, still traumatised by Stalin’s purges and terrified of any hint of “market mechanisms,” denounced even simulated prices as ideological deviation, despite them being pure and non-ideological mathematics.

Lange himself was sidelined into diplomatic posts.

The computers that could have run his model were instead used for military cryptography and prestige projects. A promising seed was smothered in the cradle by dogmatic fear of anything that smelled like capitalism, even when it was only a harmless mathematical shadow.

2. Wassily Leontief and the Input-Output Revolution

Wassily Leontief was a Russian-born, Nobel Prize–winning economist who turned the economy into solvable mathematics.

His input-output tables, first published in 1936 and refined through the 1940s and 50s, reduced the entire productive system to a gigantic matrix of linear equations.

Give him accurate data and enough computing power, and Leontief could tell you exactly how much steel, coal, labour, and electricity were required to produce a bicycle, a hospital bed, or an ICBM, and how changing one variable rippled through everything else.

This was the raw engine that every later cybernetic project desperately needed.

The United States funded his Harvard lab lavishly during the Cold War, but only to optimise military logistics and corporate supply chains.

Leontief himself warned that the same tables could plan an entire peacetime economy for human needs instead of profit or war.
His pleas were ignored by Western governments and treated as dangerous heresy in the East.

For after all, ironically, it was treated as bourgeois decadence.

To quote soviet sources:

Cybernetics: a reactionary pseudoscience that appeared in the U.S.A. after World War II and also spread through other capitalist countries. Cybernetics clearly reflects one of the basic features of the bourgeois worldview—its inhumanity, striving to transform workers into an extension of the machine, into a tool of production, and an instrument of war. At the same time, for cybernetics an imperialistic utopia is characteristic—replacing living, thinking man, fighting for his interests, by a machine, both in industry and in war. The instigators of a new world war use cybernetics in their dirty, practical affairs.

“Cybernetics” in the Short Philosophical Dictionary, 1954

It would change, in classic soviet revisionist style, once they realized what a powerful tool it was, but always kept at arm’s length.

In the Soviet Union, input-output analysis was officially adopted in the 1960s, but too late, and only as a static, annual planning tool.

The ministries refused real-time updates or inter-sectoral transparency.

By the time Glushkov tried to plug Leontief’s matrices into OGAS, the old guard had already turned the tables into another bureaucratic ledger, updated once a year on paper.

Leontief died in 1999, watching his life’s work used to make Walmart and the Pentagon more efficient, never to make scarcity obsolete….

2. The Soviet Thaw and the First Spark: Anatoly Kitov’s All-State Automated System

Anatoly Ivanovich Kitov, a brilliant and bold a Red Army colonel was the first man to propose a nationwide computer network for economic management.

In 1956 he published The Red Atom and, in 1958, sent a letter directly to Khrushchev titled “On the Possibility and Expediency of Using Electronic Computing Machines for Managing the National Economy.”

His vision: a unified network of computing centres linked by telephone lines, providing real-time data for planning.
He even suggested dual-use civilian-military infrastructure, an idea decades ahead of ARPANET.

The response?

Kitov was immediately expelled from the Communist Party, stripped of his positions, and banned from classified work.

Why?

He had dared to suggest that the Ministry of Defence share its computers with civilian planners.
The military faction, jealously guarding its toys, and the party apparatus, terrified of any decentralising force, crushed the proposal outright.

The first serious Soviet cybernetic project died not from technical impossibility, but from bureaucratic territorialism and Marxist-Leninist paranoia about “dual power.”

4. The Great Hope: Viktor Glushkov and OGAS

Viktor Glushkov, a genius mathematician, academician, and the most powerful cyberneticist in the USSR, took Kitov’s dream and made it rigorous.

His OGAS (Nationwide Automated System for Computation and Information Processing) was to be a three-tier, real-time hierarchy of 20,000 computing centres, linked by dedicated lines, constantly updating plans with feedback from factories, warehouses, and shops.

By 1964 Glushkov had working prototypes, linear programming solutions, and even early packet-switching concepts.
The plan was approved at the highest levels in 1963.

Then the sabotage began.

The Ministry of Finance, led by Vasily Garbuzov, saw OGAS as a threat to its control over resource allocation.
The Central Statistical Administration feared loss of its monopoly on data.
Regional party secretaries dreaded real-time transparency that would expose their fiefdoms.
Old-guard Marxists muttered that “cybernetics replaces the leading role of the working class with machines.”

By 1970, after endless commissions and diluted compromises, Kosygin’s reformist government fell.

Brezhnev’s stagnation triumphed.
Funding for the dedicated communication lines was slashed.

OGAS was quietly buried under mountains of paper plans and ideological denunciations.

Glushkov died in 1982, heartbroken, warning that without OGAS the Soviet economy would face insurmountable difficulties by the end of the decade.

He was right…

5. Chile’s Cybersyn: The Most Beautiful Failure

Stafford Beer, the British cybernetician, built Project Cybersyn for Salvador Allende’s government: a national operations room with swirling chairs, real-time factory data fed through telex lines, and the famous algedonic feedback system to detect pain or pleasure in the economic organism.

In October 1972, during the CIA-backed truckers’ strike, Cybersyn kept the country running, coordinating 200+ factories and rerouting scarce resources with primitive computers and sheer ingenuity.
It worked.

And then the military coup came.

On 11 September 1973 the bombs fell on La Moneda.

The operations room was dismantled, the telex machines smashed, the engineers scattered or disappeared.

Pinochet’s regime, which was backed by Chicago Boys and multinational corporations, had no interest in a system that threatened hierarchical control.
The most advanced, humane cybernetic experiment of the century was murdered by tanks and torture chambers….

6. The Venus Project: The Dream That Turned Inward

Jacque Fresco was an engineer, industrial designer and self-taught futurist, perhaps the purest cybernetic visionary of them all.

From the 1970s onward he preached a global resource-based economy run entirely by automated systems: cities were to be designed from the ground-up with efficiency in mind, with real-time sensors feeding data into central cybernetic brains, artificial intelligence allocating resources according to need and ecological carrying capacity, with zero input from money, markets, or politics.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Fresco and his partner Roxanne Meadows built a 21-acre research centre in Venus, Florida.
They constructed scale models, drafted blueprints, filmed hundreds of hours of lectures, and inspired a worldwide following.
The Venus Project was to be the living prototype, the first node of a planetary cybernetic nervous system.

And then the sabotage came, slow and internal.

The organisation became increasingly insular. Fresco’s insistence on total control and his rejection of collaboration with existing open-source or academic communities isolated the project from the very technological ecosystem it needed.
After Fresco’s death in 2017, the remaining staff gradually transformed the centre from a research hub into a paid-tour venue and merchandise operation. Membership fees, lecture tickets, and souvenir sales replaced serious engineering work.
The original cybernetic plans were locked behind copyright claims, despite them once being freely sketched and discussed. Detailed designs were never open-sourced. The promised test city never materialised.
By the 2020s the Venus Project had drifted into ideological limbo: neither a functioning prototype, nor a political movement like us, just a non-profit selling DVDs and dome postcards while the world burned.

The tragedy is bitter.

Fresco had seen farther than almost anyone: a fully automated, cybernetic, moneyless civilisation.

Yet the project died the same death as its predecessors.
Not from external tanks or party commissars, but from the quiet, familiar poisons of centralisation, personality cult, and the slow creep of profit motive inside what was meant to be its opposite.

Parting words

In retrospect, we can trace the relentless ascent of cybernetics from the periphery to the center of economic thought.

Oskar Lange first envisioned it as a a mere shadow, a way to just simulate market economics in the service of socialism, but premature technology and ideology led him to the timid conclusions of market socialism.

Then came Wassily Leontief, who stripped away the theory to build the actual mathematical engine, the Input-Output Analysis, proving that the complex web of an economy could be solved as a system of linear equations.

Later, the soviets wanted to use cybernetics as a tool through which to perform their central soviet socialist planning, a blunt instrument of the equally blunt central command of the soviet government, the same soviet government which would slowly strangle it under bureaucracy, factional party interests, and Marxist ideology.

Kantorovich and Nikolai Veduta took this further still: Kantorovich supplied the optimisation mathematics, while Veduta and the Novosibirsk Institute turned it toward the living territory itself, building cybernetic “economic geography” models that treated the Siberian steppe not as an empty resource frontier but as a delicate biosphere whose limits had to be continuously monitored and respected.

In an era that otherwise bulldozed nature in the name of progress, these projects quietly embedded ecological feedback into the planning algorithms, proving that cybernetic coordination could be made sensitive to soil, water, forests, and carrying capacity. Elena Veduta carries that legacy forward today.

Project CyberSyn refined it into a national nervous system, which even in it’s crude form, was to be made into the coordinating tool of the economy, based upon cybernetic principles first and foremost.

And while it was battle-tested in the 1973 Chilean coup d’état, coordinating resources even under crisis, it fell to geopolitical sabotage, proving it needs to be distributed, to prevent a single point of failure.

Most recently, The Venus Project wished to use it to manage the economy without direct intervention.

But it’s fatal flaw was that the plans for it’s implementation were restricted through their organization, their technicians, and their ideology, which would be it’s grave undoing, once that organization ossified and became more interested in profit than actually building this glorious, scientific future.

And today, modern corporate logisticians have since perfected the scale of this automated planning, but trapped it within the narrow, self-destructive laws of monetary profit.

Each time it has relied upon any other crutch, said crutch has beaten it to death.

So the time has come to shed the final layer of ideological baggage, since no socialist revolution will help us, no army will give up their tools in the service of peace, and no state will want to see itself become redundant.

We must move beyond using cybernetics to prop up political systems and corporations, and allow it to exist for its own sake: a pure science of organization of our economic machine.

It is time for a system that plans prosperity in real-time.

Not for a party, a nation, or a creed, but for the well-being of everyone, without distinction of race, religion, class, or species.

And the Accessist International is there to help direct that final emergence.

Because Liberation begins with Access.

Uncategorized

Our history

I do not wish to hide my origins, nor do I seek to make it a subject of conversation. I am what I am.

–Ryan Giggs

Given the possibility of newcomers being confused where our International came from, as well as the inevitable tendency of some towards conspiratorial thinking, it is important to give a full account of our history and origins, transparently, and sourced with citations.

Predecessors

The Accessist International was formed as a splinter movement originating from the old Venus Project, an organization who’s focus was on the promotion of the ideas of futurist Jacque Fresco, who envisioned a reset of human economics and society, based upon applying the scientific method to all material aspects of human society, and in particular, the use of cybernetics and automation to liberate humanity from the need of labor or wages, replacing market anarchy with an automated, real-time balanced steady state economy, without the need of without a price tag, without debt, barter, trade, money, credits, or servitude of any kind, thereby allowing human potential to truly flourish.¹

The Venus Project(TVP) is itself a sequel to Jacque Fresco’s previous organization called SocyoCyberneering Inc.², who was reconstituted into the new entity, under dubious circumstances, if certain critics are to be believed.³

While Fresco’s behavior during or after this event are the subject of debate, his ideas formed the core of a valuable and much needed alternative to our capitalistic, monetary system, as well as other labor-based economic theories.

Interest in this piqued in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis, where the collapse of people’s livelihood showed the inevitable and cyclical failure of our monetary system⁴, while the resources and infrastructure were still there, a paradox previously lived and noted by Jacque during the Great Recession.⁵

But this time, it was in a backdrop of an interconnected and digitalized, global human civilization, which could easily use it’s computers and machines to coordinate and supply production in ways that ensured no one lived lives of deprivation.

This spike in interest coincided with TVP’s alliance with the also then famous Peter Joseph, and his Zeitgeist Movement(TZM), a collaboration which would be ended a couple of years later, though by that time, their “Resource-based economics”(RBE) ideas would thereby spread to TZM, as well as a number of other organizations, proposals and movements.⁶

Things would go strong at first, with TZM and TVP both creating a network of chapters all across the globe, but as the 2010’s progressed in it’s second half, these movements would begin to stagnate, contract or die, accelerated by Jacque Fresco’s death in 2017.⁷

This happened against a strategy on both TVP and TZM’s side of focusing exclusively on promotion, while waiting for the resource-based economy to inevitably happen once most of humanity is convinced, post-collapse of society.

This was not helped by a noticeable lack of empirical progress in their projects, and increasingly vaporware-like fundraising campaigns that made the public uninterested or hostile.

Jacque Fresco Education Network

Ultimately, the reveal of a 2020 Venus Project agenda focused almost exclusively on selling merch and other materials⁸, an almost complete mockery of the ideas for which it was founded, led to our creation of a free archive of Jacque Fresco’s teachings, plucked from various sources on the Internet.

I have linked the announcement of said initiative below, for dating purposes, as well as the link to the site.⁹

There was also a collaboration with the former Russian-speaking section of the Venus Project, which split after being increasingly disturbed by TVP’s opacity, ideological drift towards Luddite New Age apocalyptic cultism(once again, precisely the complete antithesis of Jacque Fresco’s vision of a bright, optimistic, high-tech, scientific future), financial issues and blackmail.¹⁰

While we collaborated for a while, it was clear they inherited TVP’s self-centeredness when dealing with other groups, and despite our warnings, they vastly overestimated their reach, as well as how difficult it was to breach the English speaking audience.

Other splinter groups, like Moneyless Society or World Beyond Capitalism, would steadily drift towards Marxism¹¹, with the latter also becoming apologetic for China’s CCP-led regime.¹²

It was clear at that point that the above, the ambiguity of the term “Resource-Based Economy”¹³, as well as the damage and lack of trust created by TVP’s tactics was impossible to recover from.

Founding

In order to prevent the faults of previous attempts, namely the centralization of power, opacity, passivity, as well as ideological drift and linguistic drift, led to the creation of the Accessist International.

While it inherits the general principles of the The Venus Project, it is painfully aware of it’s faults as well, which led to the following changes:

1.New names and terms

We use “accessism” as the general term for our ideal: a non-competitive, open-source economy where resources are treated as a common heritage, distributed intelligently via feedback-driven systems to meet human needs without markets, debt, or wage labor.

This rebranding removes outdated terminology (e.g., “resource-based economy”) that carried utopian connotations or ideological ties, reducing linguistic drift and making the vision accessible to various audiences.

Terms like “access” mean practical entitlement over abstract equity, grounding the concept in everyday usability rather than philosophical debates.

2. Decentralized

Both TVP, as well as previous attempts as cybernetic planning(see OGAS) showed having a single-point-of-failure is a recipe for disaster, either through corruption, bureaucratization, or hacking.

The cybernetic economy needs to be planned in a decentralized, federated way. This is a non-negotiable principle, ensuring no one entity holds the kill switch and fostering active participation at every scale.

3. Open-source

The difficulties which we saw in the IP control of Jacque Fresco’s work, trying to shut down use even by internal groups like the Russian-speaking chapter¹⁴, as well as it being strategically walled-off under an opaque fundraising campaign¹⁵, which was then placed under a WIP “foundation”, who’s website has shown no progress since it was first launched.¹⁶

Information and science has to be free and open access, since it’s value to society far outweighs it’s cost.
All Accessist tools, blueprints, and code will be released under permissive licenses (e.g., MIT or GPL), enabling forks, translations, and local tweaks without permission. This counters opacity by defaulting to transparency and empowers passivity-prone followers to become builders.

4. Explicit identification as a political movement

Unlike TVP’s apolitical framing, which positioned it as a “think tank” above the fray, leading to isolation and underfunding, we are an explicit political movement, while RBE’s vagueness allowed left-leaning narratives to dominate, turning anti-market visions into partisan proxies.

History shows that visionary ideas remain prototypes without arena presence: Cybersyn fell to geopolitical forces it ignored, while TVP’s non-engagement left it vulnerable to internal drifts.

Realizing we’ll never achieve a post-scarcity accessist society unless we’re viable in elections, advocacy, and policy debates, we claim our political desires, even if suppressed in certain countries.

5. Anti-Cult and Leadership Safeguards

Fresco’s unchallenged charisma and TVP’s post-2017 leadership drifts toward personality-driven control mirrored cult-like dynamics, stifling dissent and innovation.¹⁷

Accessism enforces term limits and mandatory conflict-of-interest disclosures, and aggressively debunks “founder worship”, for us, ideas stand on merit, not myth.

6. Tech-Centric Neutrality

We apply science (cybernetics, AI, open data) directly to economics/social concerns, without Marxist labor-value anchors or anarchist anti-state dogma.

Abundance via automation isn’t “seizure”, it’s engineered access.

This firewall preserves Accessism’s purity:

A pragmatic, evidence-based path to post-scarcity, untainted by the cycles that doomed its forebears.

Uncategorized

The Backward Stance: Automation, Strikes, and the Shortsighted Push to Preserve Jobs

Post author By admin
Post date October 30, 2025
No Comments on The Backward Stance: Automation, Strikes, and the Shortsighted Push to Preserve Jobs

“Automation is good, so long as you know exactly where to put the machine.”

Eliyahu Goldratt

In October 2024, tens of thousands of dockworkers along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts walked off the job, halting trade worth billions. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) demanded higher wages and, crucially, a ban on automation technologies like driverless trucks and robotic cranes.¹

Workers protested with signs reading “robots don’t pay taxes” and “automation hurts families,” which are legitimate fears of widespread job displacement under the current monetary system.²

The strike ended after six days with a tentative deal that included wage increases but left automation restrictions vague, meaning future battles are inevitable, since the underlying paradox of monetary and/or labour based systems isn’t solved.³

Fast-forward to October 2025, and that is precisely what happened.
Amazon announced cuts of up to 30,000 corporate jobs, explicitly linked to efficiency gains from artificial intelligence software.⁴

Reactions also came from our wholly inadequate political system, with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders seizing the moment to challenge Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, releasing a report warning that AI and automation could eliminate nearly 100 million jobs over the next decade, including 89% of fast-food positions.⁵

While no full-scale strike has erupted at Amazon yet(and with fully automated warehouses increasingly close), union organizers and workers are mobilizing, repeating the port workers’ playbook: resist tech changes to protect employment.⁶
These aren’t statistical blips, but an increasingly united wave of labor actions where automation is the unspoken villain. In 2024 alone, 271,500 workers participated in major strikes, many tied to tech-driven job threats.⁷

And they have good reason to do so, since by mid-2025, over 20,000 jobs had already been cut due to AI implementations.⁸

This pattern of resistance, of fighting to retain jobs simply for the sake of having them, while understandable, even semi-obligatory under our monetary system, is profoundly backwards.

It treats employment as an end in itself, ignoring the bigger picture: that we are reaching a profoundly different stage of economic development, where abundance can be created without the need for mass human labor.

Clinging to outdated roles doesn’t safeguard dignity; it locks societies into inefficiency, delaying the shift to a world where basic needs are met through smart systems, freeing people to do whatever they want, and truly find their meaning.

The shortsightedness here is clear: every day spent blocking robotic loaders or AI diagnostics means higher costs, slower innovation, and a widening gap between what technology can deliver and what rigid labor protections allow.

Let us analyze the port strike, for example.
Dockworkers’ push against automation preserved some jobs in the short term, but at what cost?

Ports in countries like the Netherlands and Singapore have embraced automated terminals, boosting throughput by 30-50% while creating new roles in maintenance, programming, and oversight, jobs that pay more and demand skills workers could be trained for as a stopgap measure, until the realisation of the Convergence Point.⁹

In the U.S., the delay has kept operations manual and error-prone, contributing to supply chain bottlenecks that raise prices for everyone.

Similarly, Amazon’s AI-driven cuts aren’t just about slashing headcount; they’re reallocating resources to scale services faster, potentially lowering consumer costs and expanding access to goods.

Opposing this wholesale risks not only job losses but also stagnation, why fight for the right to load boxes by hand when algorithms can do it flawlessly, allowing humans to truly enjoy life and civilisation?

This mindset also reveals the limits of traditional socialism in an automated era.

Socialism, at its core, emerged to redistribute the fruits of labor in a world defined by scarcity and exploitation.

It championed full employment as the path to equity, with unions bargaining for job security alongside wages.

But in 2025, with AI projected to expose 300 million full-time jobs globally to automation, that framework is broken and counter-intuitive.

Insisting on job preservation for its own sake perpetuates a zero-sum game: workers versus machines, rather than people using machines to enhance human well-being while remaining fit to the carrying capacity of Earth, solving hunger, poverty, war, and systemic human suffering.

Instead, strikes become rear-guard actions, defending the status quo against progress.

As one labor analyst noted, for every thousand robots introduced, about 5.6 jobs disappear, but the economy grows overall if we adapt.¹⁰

Socialism’s blind spot?
It hasn’t fully reckoned with abundance, where work isn’t the measure of worth.

The solution isn’t to abandon social concerns but to realign them. Technology must be directed toward collective good under the scientific method, not just corporate efficiency.

This is the essence of Accessism: a framework for an open-source, participatory economy where automation serves society first. Imagine decentralized AI networks, governed by community input, that prioritize human wellbeing, instead of jobs or money.
Ports could automate safely under transparent oversight, their cargo distributed efficiently and safely to the people, with credit or differentiation.¹¹

Amazon workers, facing 2025’s layoffs, deserve more than pleas to slow AI; they need mandates for its ethical deployment.¹²

If resistance is preservation rather than redirection, labor movements will inevitably become irrelevant.

It’s time to pivot: let automation take the drudgery, but demand it builds prosperity for the common man. In the end, holding onto jobs out of fear isn’t protection, it’s a barrier to our collective flourishing.

The strikes of 2024 and 2025 are wake-up calls to the gaping chasm that is being created, not victories for the working class.

Accessist International instead demands a reset: program technology for people, not against them.

The automated future isn’t a threat; it’s a tool, if we wield it right.

Uncategorized

Open Letter to the Greek Pirate Party: Charting a Course to New Shores

Post author By admin
Post date September 30, 2025
No Comments on Open Letter to the Greek Pirate Party: Charting a Course to New Shores

“The sea has never been friendly to man. At most it has been the accomplice of human restlessness.” –

Joseph Conrad

Dear Fellow Journeymen,

We’ve been following your voyage with profound admiration and kinship. Because when we read our Rethymno Declaration, it tells a story like a captain’s log from sailors who’ve navigated the same treacherous waters we have, who’ve watched a ship meant for exploration become anchored in bureaucratic harbors, who’ve seen a crew lose sight of the horizon they set out to reach.

We applaud your decision to separate off from the European Pirate Party, and set sail for new shores, when it was clear they were permanently docked in the harbour of neo-liberalism.
It took courage, and we know that, because we made the same journey when we left the ecosystem formed around The Venus Project.

Like you, we found ourselves in an organization that had stopped sailing toward its vision and started circling in place, more concerned with protecting territory than exploring possibilities.

Now we’re both navigating open waters, with charts in hand, asking the same question: where do we sail from here?

We believe our courses should converge.

The Accessist International wants to propose something that feels both audacious and inevitable: that accessism is the natural evolution of what pirate politics should have been, and that together, we can reach shores neither of us could find alone.

Will you hear us out?

When we read your declaration, it revealed something we recognized immediately, you understand that liberating cyberspace while leaving the physical economy in chains only wins half the battle.

But you’ve also seen that these digital freedoms are hard to value for the common people, when they can’t afford housing, when climate chaos drives migration, when oligarchs extract wealth from increasingly desperate populations.

You wrote that “We need a new social contract… democracy must expand beyond the political system to include the economy, the environment, and technology.”.

That is precisely what we believe in.
Because we’re trying to carry that same spark to the entire economy, to show that the principles powering your digital liberation can organize all of human civilization.

The same network thinking that makes your peer-to-peer systems work, the same open coordination that makes free software thrive, the same distributed intelligence that makes decentralized platforms powerful, these are the same winds can fill different sails.
They can move physical resources, coordinate production, distribute abundance, organize society around human needs rather than artificial scarcity.

A Different Kind of Economy: Cybernetic Coordination

Let us paint you a picture of what makes accessism distinct from the deprecated economic systems of left and right, that you’ve seen either stumble, either:

Imagine an economy that works less like a marketplace and more like the internet itself.

Not the corporate-captured internet of today, but the internet as it was meant to be.
A network where information flows to where it’s needed, where resources route efficiently, where the system self-balances through feedback rather than through the chaos of competition or the rigidity of central command.

This is cybernetic economics. A system that wants real-time tracking of resources and needs, bringing automated coordination that responds to actual data rather than price signals.
Production organized through transparent and toil-less collaboration rather than proprietary, labour-based competition, providing distribution based on access rather than exchange.

The world already works that way in the digital realm.
You know the internet doesn’t auction bandwidth to the highest bidder, it routes packets intelligently, using battle-tested, open protocols, while peer-to-peer networks balance load automatically, without admirals or markets directing traffic.
You know open-source projects don’t compete in markets, they coordinate through visible collaboration, while dead projects fail through simple lack of interest, and not because they didn’t make last year’s quarter.

But what if food, housing, energy, and transportation could flow the same way?
What if we used the computational power you helped liberate to coordinate physical abundance the way we already coordinate digital abundance?

This isn’t some distant shore we’re dreaming of, since the technology exists now.
Sensors can track resources, networks can coordinate globally, while automation can handle complexity that once overwhelmed human capacity, even coordinate an entire economy efficiency, cleanly, and transparently.

We HAVE the vessels and the navigation tools. What we’re missing is enough crew willing to make the voyage.

And your crew has logically drifted ever outward on the sea of liberation.

First you fought for digital freedom, for file sharing, copyright reform and privacy rights. It was essential work, but you were mapping only the shallows.

Then you travelled more into the depth, where you articulated a complete vision of digital liberation: net neutrality, open standards, free software in government, resistance to surveillance capitalism, since you understood that digital freedom requires transforming entire systems, not just winning isolated battles.

Now, with your Rethymno Declaration, you’ve connected digital liberation to physical justice. You’re demanding housing rights, economic equity, environmental protection, true democracy. You’ve seen that freeing cyberspace while leaving people trapped in extractive capitalism is like liberating one island while leaving the archipelago in chains.

Accessism is simply the next leg of our common voyage. For us, it was a realization, that without an open, descentralized project, we ossify and are subject to the whims of unelected councils, while for you, it’s asking if the principles you’ve applied to digital systems:
-open access;
-transparent coordination;
-decentralized collaboration;
-technology serving human needs;

should not guide the entire economy, not as reforms within capitalism’s territorial waters, but as setting course for fundamentally different economic seas?

“Digital rights are not a luxury, they are a prerequisite for social justice, democracy and freedom.” This is the exact bridge between our projects, since you have carried the fight for digital freedom with brilliance, but you also know that digital freedom is fragile without physical justice.

What good is privacy if you cannot afford shelter?

What use is open knowledge if you cannot afford food?

You’ve already rejected the false choice between market capitalism and state socialism. You’ve navigated between the Scylla of failed neoliberalism and the Charybdis of authoritarianism, refusing to be dashed on either rock.

You understand the real choice is between open and closed systems, abundance and artificial scarcity, coordination and competition, human needs and profit extraction.

This is accessist thinking, which is why we are offering you this invitation, to collaborate, and join forces.

And we need this now, since the tides are changing faster than most realize.
Automation is transforming everything, with AI, robotics, and digital coordination replacing human labor at accelerating pace, making the old bargain of capitalism, where you trade your labor for survival, is coming apart at the seams.

Even socialism has no proper answer to this, since we just end up the same endgame, of a handful of owners and technicians owning entire means of production(either alone, or with an incestuous relationship with the State), while hordes of dispossessed, starving people outside, except this time, the politicians and/or owners and/or workers might be the same persons.

You’ve proposed Universal Basic Income, which shows you see the storm brewing.
But UBI is like bailing water while the hull cracks, since it tries to maintain monetary distribution in a world moving toward automated abundance.

Accessism asks a deeper question: if machines can produce plenty, why distribute that plenty through artificial scarcity? Why not organize society around access to what exists, rather than competition for deliberately restricted resources?

Your declaration documents what happens when we don’t ask these questions: housing speculation, exploitative tourism monoculture, gutted social services, climate refugees, surging authoritarianism. These aren’t accidents or aberrations, they’re what an economy based on artificial scarcity inevitably produces as it hits the limits of a finite planet.

The future is automated abundance in service of humanity, or authoritarian extraction, be it cooked in the labs of Silicon Valley’s Dark Enlightenment prophets, or the militarized fascism of the Pentagon, Tel Aviv, or Beijing.

The technology exists for either. The difference is political courage and economic vision.

The Greek Thalassocratic Tradition

There’s something poetically just should the Greeks lead this voyage.

Your ancestors understood that prosperity flows from intelligent networks connecting diverse communities, since they knew wealth comes from coordination, not hoarding, from open exchange, not enclosed extraction.

The same wisdom that made ancient Greek maritime networks thrive is what makes modern digital networks powerful.

And it’s what will make resource-based networks revolutionary.

The word “cybernetics” itself comes your own word to describe steering a ship, kybernao, so what better steersmen to this new ship than greek pirates?

You’ve already proven you understand this in your bones. Your embrace of peer-to-peer technologies wasn’t just about file sharing, it was about recognizing that decentralized networks create more abundance than centralized hierarchies ever could.

It was about bringing the Promethean spark of a cybernetic economy to the digital realm, refusing to be trapped, as you so perfectly wrote, paddling between Scylla and Charybdis – between a failed state and a totalitarian one.

Your maritime ancestors knew that the bravest act isn’t hugging the coastline. It’s sailing beyond sight of land, trusting your instruments and your crew, following the stars to shores your charts say might not exist.

You’ve done it before. In leaving the PPEU, you’ve done it again.

Now we’re asking you to set sail once more, to carry that cybernetic vision from bits to atoms, from digital harbors to the entire physical world, from the liberation of information to the liberation of civilization itself.

The horizon ahead shimmers with possibility. Automated production. Transparent coordination. Needs met through access rather than exchange. Democratic participation in economic decisions. Technology finally serving humanity rather than controlling it.

You’re building the political vessel. We’re building the economic one. But we’ll sail farther together than either fleet could alone.

The winds of technological change are filling the sails whether we set them or not, so the question isn’t whether we’re heading toward post-scarcity economics, since automation and climate crisis guarantee that.

The real question is whether we arrive at authoritarian extraction or coordinated abundance.

You’ve shown you choose abundance. You’ve shown you choose democracy. You’ve shown you choose the open sea over safe harbors when safe harbors become prisons.

So we’re asking, comrade to comrade, sailor to sailor, explorer to explorer:

Will you sail with us?

You have already declared that democracy must expand into the economy, that digital rights are inseparable from social justice, and that struggles cannot remain isolated.
This is exactly what Accessism builds upon.
Together, we can transform not only cyberspace, but the material basis of society, into an open commons where abundance flows to need, not profit.

We believe your Rethymno Declaration points to the same horizon we are sailing toward.
Let us sail together, not as parallel fleets, but as a single crew shaping the course of history.

We’re ready to make the voyage together.

With solidarity and hope,
The Accessist International

Uncategorized

Accessism: Open Source for the Physical World

Post author By admin
Post date September 26, 2025
No Comments on Accessism: Open Source for the Physical World

The most common objection to accessism, as well as other open-access/resource-based economies is the so-called economic calculation problem.

Now, some in the socialist camp have handwaved it by saying that we can broadly approximate the basic needs of people and communities, so it’s close enough, or that once the workers seize the means of production, actually having to be efficient won’t matter.

Others in the market socialist camp, have instead embraced the free market as the most efficient way of solving the problem, instead opting merely to have coops and/or state-owned companies as the ones producing.

But the answer to the question instead is in the palm of the ones mocking the other’s economics as inefficient and deadly.

And no, I’m not talking about your stereotypical pampered rich kid, criticizing capitalism, and quoting Marx like scripture, on his high-end flagship smartphone, since this applies just as much to the free-market fans, making and sharing memes mocking the former.

Because inside each little computing device, be it some low-end, off-brand smartphone, or the most advanced and distributed supercomputer used by some Bond-esque secret service agency, there are algorithms, kernels, drivers and load balancers, making sure every component of your phone, from power, to input, to processing and networking, is organized gracefully and efficiently.

And before you say that a global economy is different from browsing Youtube, most of the crucial software is the same, be it used by:

your low-end smartphone;
your personal computer;
the server hosting this website;
the AWS distributed clusters making sure someone’s Amazon Prime Videos are delivered to him and millions of other users with bandwidth optimized across all the regions of the planet;
some Linux supercomputer currently conducting cutting edge research.

We don’t need to speculate if such a resource-distribution system works or not, or how scalable it is, we know it already does.

Because modern computing already solved a problem that economics has failed to: how to coordinate heterogenous resources without chaos, and without tyranny.

When your laptop runs a program, the CPU, memory, peripherals and network aren’t auctioned off in a bidding war between processes.

You don’t have to decide whether your browser or your music player “deserves” RAM, or if your video has enough funding to use your mouse and keyboard.
The operating system simply balances resources in real time, allocating what is needed, where it is needed.

Now imagine if computing worked like capitalism:

Every app would need its own budget.
Every process would negotiate contracts.
Crashes and bottlenecks would be constant.

Absurd, right? Yet that’s exactly how our economies still work.

In the same way operating systems distribute computing resources efficiently without markets, an Open Access Economy would use cybernetic balancing&feedback, AI, and open data to coordinate physical resources.

Imagine farms and food distribution that are balanced like computing workloads.
Imagine housing allocated by need and availability, not speculation.
Imagine transport coordinated like network routing.
Image energy shared and stabilized like a power grid, not traded as a commodity.

But such a system introduces a terrifying possibility, of software being softly tweaked to make sure certain groups are marginalized and silenced when it comes to their share of the Earth’s common resources, just like today, in our capitalistic, monetary system, yet also utterly dependent and locked in to the flawed code.

The same situation happened decades ago, in the software community, when they realized the software they bought, even for exorbitant prices, could be restricted, or even rendered useless with one update, or computer/platform switch, leaving them beholden to greedy mega-corporations and regional restrictions.

This led to the creation of open-source, and the free software movement, by people determined in the beliefs that the computer, and it’s software, should belong to the users, not some faceless corporation, stealing and spying on their own customers.

It wasn’t an easy fight.
While individual hackers had to start from scratch, the same corporations that once had such a large market share had way more programmers to pay, and already established software to compete with, as well as plenty of money and influence used to smear the nascent movement.

Yet, year by year, it grew more and more complete, to the extent that you can legally own a computer who’s schematics, both hardware and software, are totally free and transparent, without paying a single dime, except for the actual physical gear.

But just as software was liberated from proprietary code, humanity can liberate the essentials of life from proprietary economics.

Most people today take open source for granted. Your phone, your browser, even the internet itself runs on software created, shared, and maintained freely.

No one pays a license fee every time a packet crosses the web. No one has to bid for CPU cycles just to load a page. The infrastructure works because the knowledge is open and the system balances resources automatically.

But when it comes to the economy: food, housing, transport, energy, we’re still stuck in the equivalent of closed, proprietary code. Access is locked behind paywalls, patents, rents, and markets. The result is artificial scarcity in a world that already has the tools to provide abundance.

Open source has already shown the world that cooperation beats competition when it comes to progress, and accessism extends that principle from code to civilization itself.

The question is no longer whether the idea works.
We already live inside a working proof every time we open a browser or send a message. The only question is whether we will keep treating food, shelter, and energy like licensed software from the 1980s, or finally free them as part of our shared human commons.

The future is open.
The future is access.

Uncategorized

How the transition can work

Post author By admin
Post date September 19, 2025
No Comments on How the transition can work

“The future is always all around us, waiting, in moments of transitions, to be born in moments of revelation.
No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us.
We know only that it is always born in pain.”
— J. Michael Strazynski

One of the most frequent accusations of previous proto-accessist(resource-based economy) groups is their total lack of a transition plan, of how to reach from here to there.

More frequently, it can be summed up as:
“Automation is going to kill the economy, something something collapse, and then we are all going to live in our little automated garden of Eden.”

Such vagueness, as well as the ossification of such groups, simply waiting until the system is here, has resulted in ideological drift, the collapse of social reach, and ultimately becoming forgotten, ironically, just as automation and AI is starting to impact the global economy, and the livelihood of billions.

This is one of the reasons why the Accessist International was formed, to be a organizing force, backing the establishment of open access communities and political parties, in order to test and bring to the day to day life, as well as turn accessism into a voice on the political scene, showing an alternative world is possible.

Now, you may ask how we can secure the actual infrastructure, what marxists used to call “the means of production” for the benefit of the common man.

Maybe:

A decentralized algorithmic DAO buys up collapsed corporations with the extra margin from automated industry.
Maybe communities reclaim abandoned infrastructure and put it in a trust.
Maybe some eccentric billionaire grows a conscience.
Or some movement retakes it by force and guards it from corporate-state capture.

Frankly, how the transition happens is less important than what happens next.

And that happens is the creation of an automated, scientific, open economy where the engines of production are transparently balanced with the planet’s resources and consumer needs, without requiring major human oversight or labour.

The Accessist International does not imagine this transition as smooth or painless.

The old system will resist with every tool it has, from propaganda to surveillance.

There will be struggle, confusion, and attempts to force automation into the service of profit and control. But history is not on its side.

Just as feudalism collapsed when capitalism made it obsolete, capitalism will collapse when accessism renders it irrelevant.

Now, you might ask:
Who runs this new system?
Who distributes all these resources?

Not a state. Not a corporation.
Machines, code, algorithms, and open-source infrastructure that intelligently manage resources for all inhabitants, human and otherwise.
No state, no corporation needed.

We already trust technology to handle complex systems, from weather forecasting to air traffic control to global shipping.
Why not let it coordinate food distribution?
Or housing logistics?
Or energy grids?

But unlike capitalist systems, where this tech is owned and weaponized by the few, a Open-Access Economy is transparent, distributed, and anti-authoritarian.
No one owns it.
Everyone shapes it.

And if that sounds like a dream, remember: much of the technology is already here.
The capitalist class built it to automate us out of work, but we can use it to automate capitalism out of relevance, the brightest prospect for an unparalleled positive impact on human freedom and planetary balance.

Uncategorized

Reaching the Convergence Point

Post author By admin
Post date September 13, 2025
No Comments on Reaching the Convergence Point

“An era may be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted.”

— Arthur Miller

In various pages of this site, you may have noticed us using the word Convergence Point at multiple points on this site.

But what is the Convergence Point?

It is the ultimate economic inflection point, the moment at which any economic economy is cheaper to be done by an automated agent, than a human worker.

And because of capitalism’s relent drive to compete and innovate, once the Convergence Point happens, automating away your workforce becomes not only optional, but increasingly mandatory, to maintain one’s economic edge.

Of course, the destabilizing and impoverishing effects of it are bound to happen way before then, since different sectors of the economy automate at different rates, but this is the point at which capitalism becomes physically impossible, and accessism a necessity.

So, what can be done?

Here’s where Accessism comes in. At the Convergence Point, we’ll be forced to confront the obvious: the purpose of production isn’t profit, it’s life itself.

In an open-access economy, abundance is intelligently managed for all inhabitants, human and otherwise, distributed as access rather than rationed by wages or markets.

Automation, networks, and AI are not threats.
They’re the infrastructure of a society where nobody has to earn survival.

At the Convergence Point, the choice will no longer be “capitalism or socialism,” but:

A system of abundance and freedom
or
A system of surveillance and control

Because make no mistake: if capitalism tries to survive past the Convergence Point, it won’t become freer or more efficient, it will become monstrous.
Automation without access means permanent unemployment, universal dependency, and authoritarian control of resources.
A digital feudalism, worse than any dystopia imagined.

And to prevent that, accessism needs to be the political alternative people for the 21st century people need, and for the Accessist International to be a constellation of parties, groups and candidates like you and me, ready to lay a brick at the governance of the future.

A vibrant presence in the political scene and public consciousness, ready for the trials of the future.

One that people can look forward to, as the Convergence Point and it’s chaos steadily approaches.

Will you be part of this political vanguard?

Why Millennials (and Gen Z) Already Get It

For younger generations, the Convergence Point isn’t an abstract debate, it’s lived reality. We grew up in the rubble of 2008, watching wages stagnate while productivity soared. We entered the workforce in the shadow of gig jobs, debt, and rent that devours half a paycheck.

Now AI threatens to displace us entirely.

We were told: “Study hard, work hard, and you’ll succeed.” But the system is clearly rigged. Our generation already knows the old promises are bankrupt. We’re not afraid of questioning capitalism, because it failed us first.

The Convergence Point is where the frustration of a generation meets the opportunity of technology. It’s where we decide whether automation liberates humanity, or enslaves it.

Every era thinks it’s living through history. But this time, we truly are.

The Convergence Point isn’t centuries away, it’s within our lifetimes.

Maybe even this decade.

The only real question is:

When we arrive, will we cling to scarcity and control, or step into abundance and freedom?

The answer will define not just economics, but civilization itself.