Team Beresheet: The Technological Kibbutz Designed to Build Project Venus on the Ground of Capitalism

Part I: The Vision That Failed to Land

Some ideas are born so large that the existing world seems too small, too crude, and too outdated to contain them. They are not satisfied with a local reform, another regulation, another welfare mechanism, or another technical improvement. They seek to reimagine the foundations of human society: work, economy, education, the city, technology, the use of natural resources, and even the basic question of why human beings must struggle against one another for basic existence.

Such was The Venus Project.

The vision of Jacque Fresco was not merely another narrow political proposal. It was an attempt to sketch an entirely different civilization: a society based on knowledge, science, rational planning, automation, sustainability, and the intelligent use of Earth’s resources for the benefit of all humanity. Instead of a world governed by scarcity, debt, forced competition, advertising, ownership, and an endless struggle for money, The Venus Project proposed a society in which technology liberates the human being rather than enslaving him; where knowledge serves life, not merely profit; and where the economic system no longer produces artificial poverty inside a world of technological abundance.

In that sense, The Venus Project was one of the rare human visions of the modern age. It did not merely ask how to make the market more efficient. It asked why the market had become the center of our lives in the first place. It did not merely ask how resources should be distributed. It asked why the resources of the planet are not managed from the outset as a shared foundation for dignified human existence. It did not settle for criticizing capitalism; it tried to imagine a reality in which money itself loses its central status.

But precisely there, its point of weakness was also revealed.

The Venus Project knew how to point toward the horizon, but it struggled to build the road toward it. It knew how to describe a world beyond money, but it did not sufficiently develop the question of how to get there from within a world in which money still determines almost everything. It was repelled by capitalism, and in many moral respects rightly so: by exploitation, by forced consumerism, by the meaningless race, by the reduction of the human being into a unit of production and consumption. But that very repulsion created a deep practical difficulty. Whoever refuses to touch the tools of the existing game will find it very hard to build, inside that game, a bridge toward another world.

And here arises the simple, sharp question that cannot be avoided: who will finance the transition?

Who will build the new cities? Who will fund the research centers? Who will pay the engineers, architects, developers, educators, community managers, and infrastructure experts? Who will establish the systems of energy, food, transportation, health, and education required for a different kind of society? Is it enough for people to be convinced that the vision is beautiful? Can a new world be built by inspiration alone?

History teaches us that it cannot.

A vision without a transition mechanism remains dependent on a general awakening of humanity. It waits for the moment when enough people will understand, agree, give up, organize, and together change the structure of society. But such a moment almost never arrives by itself. Human beings live inside existing systems. They have bills, families, debts, fears, habits, interests, and power structures around them. Even when they identify with a great vision, they still operate inside the economic reality that holds them.

Therefore, the problem of The Venus Project was not merely a problem of marketing, exposure, or adoption rate. It was a problem of landing. The vision was high, perhaps very high, but the economic engine of takeoff was never fully defined. It carried a longing for a world after capitalism, but less of an understanding of how capitalism itself could be used to build the next stage.

This is where the need for Team Bereshit was born.

Team Bereshit emerged from the understanding that one cannot separate from capitalism before winning its tokens. One cannot build another society by ignoring the economic force that governs the present one. That force must be understood, studied, harnessed, and defeated from within; only then can its fruits be redirected toward another purpose.

Not another dream waiting for a new world.

But a system that knows how to begin from the old world, use its tools, and through them build the road beyond it.

Part II: The Hybrid Technological Kibbutz

To understand Team Bereshit, one must stop thinking of it merely as an ideological movement. Team Bereshit is not only a moral call for a better society, nor simply another group of people who wish to “do good.” Its real innovation lies in the attempt to build an actual economic mechanism, one capable of taking a great social vision and turning it into a functioning system inside reality.

The proposed structure is a hybrid technological kibbutz.

The word kibbutz matters here, but it does not mean a nostalgic return to the old agricultural kibbutz. There is not necessarily a cowshed, a field, a communal dining hall, or shared housing. The new kibbutz is a kibbutz of knowledge, entrepreneurship, technology, trust, human capital, and financial capital. It seeks to create a space in which entrepreneurs do not operate merely as isolated individuals racing toward the next exit, but as part of a broader system in which every private success also strengthens a shared public center.

At the heart of the system stands a parent public-benefit company: a company limited by guarantee or an equivalent public-benefit legal structure, depending on jurisdiction. Its purpose is not to become another high-tech company, but to serve as an anchor. It holds the vision, the charter, the ethical criteria, the public trust, and the long-term continuity. It is not built in order to distribute profits to private controlling shareholders, but to accumulate strength, knowledge, relationships, and holdings for a broad public purpose.

Around it, commercial subsidiaries are established. This is where the business world enters with full seriousness. Each subsidiary may be a startup, a product company, a platform, a technological service, a social infrastructure, an educational system, a health or welfare tool, a civic safety mechanism, or any other venture that serves human well-being and a sustainable society. In these subsidiaries there are entrepreneurs, employees, investors, shares, options, fundraising rounds, revenues, and the possibility of profit. In other words, the model does not abolish market mechanisms. On the contrary, it uses them.

The difference lies in ownership and flow.

An entrepreneur who joins the Team Bereshit ecosystem does not merely receive guidance, connections, or inspiration. He enters a system. In return for access to the human, professional, strategic, and financial ecosystem, the entrepreneur grants a certain percentage of the subsidiary’s shares to the parent public-benefit company. This is not a symbolic donation. It is a foundational mechanism. These shares are the way private success is connected back to the public center.

The entrepreneur receives access to a system of people, advisors, experts, investors, collaborations, reputation, strategic thinking, conceptual guidance, and a layer of trust. The investor receives the opportunity to invest in a regular commercial company with clear profit potential. The subsidiary receives better ground for growth. And the parent public-benefit company receives holdings that strengthen its ability to build the next generation of ventures.

Thus, a simple yet profound economic cycle is created: an idea becomes a company. The company raises investment. The investment builds a product. The product creates value. The value increases the company’s worth. Part of that worth is held by the parent public-benefit company. And when revenues, dividends, share sales, or an exit occur, part of the economic power returns to the public center.

But here lies the major difference: the money that returns to the parent is not meant to become private profit for a controlling shareholder. It is meant to serve as fuel for expanding the system. To establish more companies. To connect more entrepreneurs. To fund more research. To build more infrastructure. To support more social solutions. To enlarge the engine.

In this sense, Team Bereshit offers a practical answer to the problem The Venus Project struggled to solve. Instead of saying to the existing world, “You are invalid,” it says: we understand your tools. Companies, shares, investments, valuations, growth, incentives, profit, and exits. But we arrange them around a different center. Not around private enrichment alone, but around the construction of continuous public capital.

It is capitalism on the outside, but not capitalism at the heart. On the outside, commercial companies operate in a language the market understands. On the inside, a public-benefit parent company asks an entirely different question: how can every business success become another stone in the building of a healthier human society?

This is not a utopia detached from economics. It is transition architecture: a system that begins inside the market, but does not end there.

Part III: Moral Governance and a Long-Term Capital Engine

The great challenge of Team Bereshit is not merely to establish companies. Companies are established and dissolved all the time. The greater challenge is to build a system that will not lose its soul the moment it begins to succeed.

This is the test every social vision eventually meets. In the beginning, everything is clean: a few people, a great idea, a sense of mission, internal trust, and goodwill. But when money, shares, investors, influence, appointments, budgets, and profit opportunities enter the picture, the true test begins. Will the system remain faithful to its purpose, or will it gradually become yet another mechanism of insiders, interests, and control?

For this reason, at the heart of Team Bereshit’s model there must stand not only an economic mechanism, but also a governance mechanism. It is not enough to create a public-benefit parent company and commercial subsidiaries. It must also be ensured that the parent company itself is not captured. That it does not become a beautiful container occupied by ordinary power players. That it does not use words such as “society,” “humanity,” “sustainability,” and “vision” merely to wrap another pursuit of private influence.

Here, a deep Jewish inspiration enters the picture. Team Bereshit may draw from Maimonides’ description of the selection of members of the Sanhedrin, not in order to establish a new religious institution, but in order to learn an ancient principle of governance: whoever is entrusted with public power must be a person whose master is not power. A person of wisdom, settled judgment, humility, hatred of greed, love of truth, public responsibility, and a good name. Not merely a talented person. Not merely a well-connected person. Not merely a person who speaks beautifully. Rather, a person to whom trust can be entrusted.

This is the fundamental difference between managing a business and stewarding a public engine. In an ordinary business, the central question is who can generate economic value. In Team Bereshit, the question is broader: who can hold economic value without allowing it to corrupt the purpose for which it was accumulated.

Therefore, the parent public-benefit company must be governed by clean-handed public figures, selected according to strict and transparent criteria. People who are not dependent on a single entrepreneur, a single investor, or a single center of power. People who understand technology, society, law, economics, and education, but who also understand the limits of power. Their role is not to manage every startup day to day, but to guard the compass: which ventures enter the ecosystem, which values bind them, how resources are allocated, and how the system’s loyalty to future generations is preserved.

At this point, the depth of the difference between Team Bereshit and an ordinary technology incubator becomes clear. A regular incubator asks: which venture will generate a return? Team Bereshit asks: which venture will generate a return that can become human infrastructure? A regular incubator looks for the company that can be sold at a high valuation. Team Bereshit looks for the company that can succeed, and through its success increase the system’s ability to establish more beneficial companies.

Thus, a long-term capital engine is created. Not a philanthropic fund dependent on donations. Not an ideological movement dependent on volunteer energy. Not a single startup dependent on one exit. Rather, an expanding system: entrepreneurs join, companies are built, investors enter, value is created, holdings accumulate in the parent public-benefit company, and the parent funds the next stage. More entrepreneurs. More solutions. More technologies. More infrastructures for a human-centered society.

Here, the connection to The Venus Project returns. The Venus Project offered a vision of a world in which science, resources, and technology serve all human beings, rather than the race for profit. Team Bereshit does not cancel that vision. On the contrary, it seeks to give it an engine. It understands that one cannot leap over economic history. One cannot build a world after money without first understanding how money flows, who holds it, what drives it, and how it can be harnessed toward another purpose.

If The Venus Project was a horizon, Team Bereshit seeks to be the road. If The Venus Project was a direction, Team Bereshit seeks to be transition architecture. Not a childish war against capitalism, and not spiritual surrender to it. Rather, the use of its tools in order to gradually build institutions that may allow human society to become less captive to it.

Perhaps this is the most precise formulation of the move: capitalism on the outside, a public-benefit company at the core, and a human vision at the end of the road.

Or, in simpler words: to win the tokens of the old world, in order to finance the building of the new one.