Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project
- This topic has 33 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just learnt that Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project passed away a few days ago (18th May). We were talking on another thread about the Manifesto of the Money Free Party and the question of common ownership but Fresco's vision was unquestionably global in scope. As he put it "The World is the Common Heirtage of All"
There is a long and interesting youtube vid on his ideas here
Yes, he was an interesting person who must be given credit for the spread of the idea of a moneyless world of abundance since the turn of the century (though this is of course an idea whose time has come) via his influence on Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist Movement. I think the two fell out when Joseph was moving more towards political action of some sort while Fresco was more into technology (promoting "circular cities", etc) and in fact opposed to politics. I've not seen a full obituary of him but I suspect he must have been involved in the 1930s (when he would have been in his 20s — he was 101 when he died) in or around the Technocracy movement which wanted society to be run by qualified engineers not elected politicians, an idea which Zeitgeist used to promote and which still survives to a certain extent in what they argue.He expresses his views on a moneyless world of abundance clearly and succinctly here:http://thezeitgeistmovement.se/files/Books/The-Best-That-Money-Cant-Buy.pdf
A follower of this forum has drawn our attention to this obituary in the New York Times:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/jacque-fresco-futurist-who-envisioned-a-society-without-money-dies-at-101.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Proof, from the same source, that Fresco was once a member of the Technocracy Movement:http://teslacommunity.com/page/technocratic-party#.WSgCGzeJhdiInteresting that one of the things he fell out with them, or vice versa, seems to over "Technocracy in One Country (especially America)". It is true, though, that his plan to establish a "circular city" somewhere, isolated from capitalism, was a fantasy.
ALB wrote:Proof, from the same source, that Fresco was once a member of the Technocracy Movement:http://teslacommunity.com/page/technocratic-party#.WSgCGzeJhdiInteresting that one of the things he fell out with them, or vice versa, seems to over "Technocracy in One Country (especially America)". It is true, though, that his plan to establish a "circular city" somewhere, isolated from capitalism, was a fantasy.This bit reminds me of something: They claim to be “scientific” and to “use science”, but at the same time, they also say they actually use “rational consensus”, a concept philosophic in origin which has no basis in scientific fact, to make decisions. They believe the Technate Administration Chart and its personnel selection system is “too hierarchical”, even though it is the same vertical alignment procedure of promotion used by industry for selecting its supervisory staff in the technical departments. It is a technique which has proved remarkably successful despite Price System interference. It is the method responsible selecting the personnel responsible for developing, installing, maintaining and upgrading all the complex technology which is currently keeping us all alive. TVP believes that thanks to their education system everybody would be "generalists" and would all be "equally qualified to make decisions" (They believe that given equal education and equal opportunity, everyone will perform identically, which is of course false; in their information presentation, they do mention what we call today "epigenetics", but only stress the part about external conditioning and minimize the effects of biological inheritance as much as possible).
I thought you were on holiday! Haven't you a job to do Mod? Who is the troll 'bob andrews' , making repeated personal attacks against me? Why don't you remove him? He contributes nothing to the forum apart from shit stirring?Why is 'bob andrews' allowed to remain anonimoius while attacking other forum members? ? I would like to know who he/she is and you can do that because you made a big song and dance about me trying to have pseudonym by revealing who I was, what computer I was using and what colour underpants I had on. Does the 'free for all' apply only to trolls and spammers? Have the rules been changed? Or is it the same , same old.
moderator1 wrote:This bit reminds me of something: They claim to be “scientific” and to “use science”, but at the same time, they also say they actually use “rational consensus”, a concept philosophic in origin which has no basis in scientific fact, to make decisions.It has to be said, for those unaware of intricacies these issues, that mod1's claim is also 'philosophic in origin'.And, indeed, the 'philosophic origin' of that claim is an elitist one, well suited to any ruling class, especially the bourgeoisie. All ruling classes wish to claim that they alone 'know facts', to the exclusion of the exploited class (ie. the majority), and in opposition to any 'rational consensus' that the exploited insist that they alone can consciously build (for example, Marx's claims for the class-conscious proletariat).
mod1 wrote:They believe the Technate Administration Chart and its personnel selection system is “too hierarchical”, even though it is the same vertical alignment procedure of promotion used by [bourgeois] industry for selecting its supervisory staff in the technical departments. It is a technique which has proved remarkably successful despite Price System interference. It is the [bourgeois] method responsible selecting the personnel responsible for developing, installing, maintaining and upgrading all the complex technology which is currently keeping us all alive.[my bold and inserts]mod1 is remarkably sympathetic here to capitalism, which, indeed, is 'currently keeping us all alive'. But, for whose purposes, and in whose interests?
mod1 wrote:TVP believes that thanks to their education system everybody would be "generalists" and would all be "equally qualified to make decisions" …As do any socialists worthy of the name 'democrats'.
mod1 wrote:…(They believe that given equal education and equal opportunity, everyone will perform identically, which is of course false; in their information presentation, they do mention what we call today "epigenetics", but only stress the part about external conditioning and minimize the effects of biological inheritance as much as possible).[my bold]This is completely untrue – no democrat claims that 'everyone will perform identically' – only that 'everyone has an identical right to participate in decision-making'. It's up to 'experts' to persuade the majority – if the so-called 'experts' can't do so, then the 'experts' are removed, and replaced by 'experts' who can explain to the majority.FWIW, I'm beginning to see why so many of the SPGB and its supporters (including robbo and YMS) sing from the same hymn-sheet as mod1. They all share a common ideology, which is totally unrelated to Marx's views, and totally unsuitable for a democratic socialism.As for 'biological inheritance' (which we can't change) playing a major role, whatever happened to the revolutionary notion that 'socio-historical inheritance' (which we obviously can change) forms by far the greatest part of any human 'inheritance'?
LBird wrote:This is completely untrue –How do you 'know' that? Has it been voted on? If you can claim something is 'untrue' then surely you can also claim something is 'true' but as you argue 'truth' must be voted upon. Or are you using 19th century 'religious materialism' to claim you 'know' something not to 'true'?
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:This is completely untrue –How do you 'know' that? Has it been voted on? If you can claim something is 'untrue' then surely you can also claim something is 'true' but as you argue 'truth' must be voted upon. Or are you using 19th century 'religious materialism' to claim you 'know' something not to 'true'?
I'm afraid that you're going to have to read some books on the subject, Vin.About 25 years' worth.I've tried to help you make the leap, by providing a shortcut, many times, but you're ideologically unwilling to learn.Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate.
LBird wrote:Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate.Doesn't it worry you that you will die without answering a simple question? How come you can 'know' something to be true but the rest of us can't?My experience is that you are incapable of being honest and you are an idiot to boot.I wont expect an answer just your usual personal abuse which the Mods seem to let you off with.NB your post does not answer the question. it is a personal attack. Stop being a C@nt
Vin wrote:…you are an idiot…I wont expect an answer just your usual personal abuse which the Mods seem to let you off with.Without provocation, I'm an 'idiot', but I'm being 'let off' with 'personal abuse'?
Vin wrote:NB your post does not answer the question. it is a personal attack. Stop being a C@ntFor a mythical 'personal attack', now I'm a 'cunt'? Because you can't understand epistemological issues?Is this the political method of the SPGB for dealing with political criticism?
No, it's my own personal political method and you didn't make a criticism of my position you made personal insults. So I replied in kind. So kindly just answer the question.How do you 'know' something is 'untrue' ????and why can you make a statement of truth but us 'religious materialists' can't.You have determined 'truth' as an individual without a vote, yet again contradicting yourself. !I say it again your an idiot and an ignorant one at that.
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:This is completely untrue –How do you 'know' that? Has it been voted on? If you can claim something is 'untrue' then surely you can also claim something is 'true' but as you argue 'truth' must be voted upon. Or are you using 19th century 'religious materialism' to claim you 'know' something not to 'true'?
I'm afraid that you're going to have to read some books on the subject, Vin.About 25 years' worth.I've tried to help you make the leap, by providing a shortcut, many times, but you're ideologically unwilling to learn.Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate.
So what you are saying is. is that there is a small group of people (possibly only 1) who understnad Marx, and the rest of the population of the earth do not understand Marx. Sounds like you've identified an elite group with specialist knowledge, there, matey.
LBird wrote:moderator1 wrote:This bit reminds me of something: They claim to be “scientific” and to “use science”, but at the same time, they also say they actually use “rational consensus”, a concept philosophic in origin which has no basis in scientific fact, to make decisions.It has to be said, for those unaware of intricacies these issues, that mod1's claim is also 'philosophic in origin'.And, indeed, the 'philosophic origin' of that claim is an elitist one, well suited to any ruling class, especially the bourgeoisie. All ruling classes wish to claim that they alone 'know facts', to the exclusion of the exploited class (ie. the majority), and in opposition to any 'rational consensus' that the exploited insist that they alone can consciously build (for example, Marx's claims for the class-conscious proletariat).
mod1 wrote:They believe the Technate Administration Chart and its personnel selection system is “too hierarchical”, even though it is the same vertical alignment procedure of promotion used by [bourgeois] industry for selecting its supervisory staff in the technical departments. It is a technique which has proved remarkably successful despite Price System interference. It is the [bourgeois] method responsible selecting the personnel responsible for developing, installing, maintaining and upgrading all the complex technology which is currently keeping us all alive.[my bold and inserts]mod1 is remarkably sympathetic here to capitalism, which, indeed, is 'currently keeping us all alive'. But, for whose purposes, and in whose interests?
mod1 wrote:TVP believes that thanks to their education system everybody would be "generalists" and would all be "equally qualified to make decisions" …As do any socialists worthy of the name 'democrats'.
mod1 wrote:…(They believe that given equal education and equal opportunity, everyone will perform identically, which is of course false; in their information presentation, they do mention what we call today "epigenetics", but only stress the part about external conditioning and minimize the effects of biological inheritance as much as possible).[my bold]This is completely untrue – no democrat claims that 'everyone will perform identically' – only that 'everyone has an identical right to participate in decision-making'. It's up to 'experts' to persuade the majority – if the so-called 'experts' can't do so, then the 'experts' are removed, and replaced by 'experts' who can explain to the majority.FWIW, I'm beginning to see why so many of the SPGB and its supporters (including robbo and YMS) sing from the same hymn-sheet as mod1. They all share a common ideology, which is totally unrelated to Marx's views, and totally unsuitable for a democratic socialism.As for 'biological inheritance' (which we can't change) playing a major role, whatever happened to the revolutionary notion that 'socio-historical inheritance' (which we obviously can change) forms by far the greatest part of any human 'inheritance'?
FWIW that is a quote from the link. They are not my words.
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.ee to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
- The topic ‘Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project’ is closed to new replies.