You must log in or register to comment.

wubbbalubbadubdub t1_ityuja4 wrote

What's super weird about this article is it repeats the "doomed to fail" comment twice but never attempts to explain why.

It explains some of the politics, and how the US is trying to make itself less dependent on Taiwan's chip production.

It seems like the writer just found the comment and really wanted to write an article about it, but had nothing meaningful to add...


alienlizardlion t1_ityxevq wrote

It’s obviously Taiwanese propaganda, if they lose the grip on semi conductor fabrication they lose a huge security clearance from the US.

Make no mistake, there are thousands of businesses that need ics and chips and will pay a premium. Someone will capitalize on that.


borgendurp t1_itz07e5 wrote


Is clearance the right word here?


at_lasto t1_itz0tft wrote

Leverage seems more appropriate.


Gberg888 t1_itz0zv8 wrote

Protection is the right word. As soon as the us has that factory up and running and the proper people staffing and it's known its making the current gen chips and can make the next gen chips... the us has less of a reason to protect Taiwan...


Worth-Reputation3450 t1_itz4o1q wrote

I think keeping China from getting the best foundry company in the world is enough reason for the US to protect Taiwan.


Gberg888 t1_itziz58 wrote

As soon as that plant is up to snuff if China did invade I guarantee you'd see a US strike on the infrastructure of tsmc...


GetOutOfTheWhey t1_iu2kc4c wrote

I doubt there would be a strike. Bombing your allies even to prevent knowledge getting to the enemy is unpalatable.

So the alternative is probably a few kilos of plastic explosive lined inside the concrete walls.

Then chalk it up to an accident or miscalculation.


Kaionacho t1_itzl260 wrote

I not quite sure about that tbh. The US doesn't really want to go to war with China for obvious reasons.

I would say the US would more likely bomb all TSMC facilities to the ground, If TSMC is not needed anymore,


f0me t1_itz7ria wrote

Reducing China’s naval access into the greater Pacific remains a major reason


Deicide1031 t1_itzetk5 wrote

Not necessarily true. The states has a vested interested in maintaining an order, and if nations can just snap up countries liberally so close to say japan and South Korea it’ll bring up the question of whether or not the states is really still top dog and interested in maintaining order. It’s not just the chips.


pmmbok t1_itz99mv wrote

It will take decades before the better and always better ethos of tsm is internalized by a new player..


DjScenester t1_itzg3ko wrote

Source? Because I have a feeling in five years we will be good


pmmbok t1_iu1t9wf wrote

No source. Just an opinion. From life. It takes a while to build a culture of excellence.


saberline152 t1_itzg92h wrote

nah, keep in mind that US weapons need chips and if something were to happen during a conflict they now have their own ability to make the chips necessary. Look at how much it is hurting Russia just to not get the chips they need


CypripediumCalceolus t1_iu0kign wrote

Military chips are very different from competitive commercial tech. Military and aerospace use well-known older tech refined to always work even in the most terrible conditions. Tech from ten years ago is good.


Gberg888 t1_itzirtu wrote

Why do you think the US just passed the chips act? Why do you think there is a massive push to get chips made domestically in the USA?

It's so the usa doesn't have to rely on others to support the USA everything... economy as a whole, tech and developments of tech, and the military...

If the US doesn't have to ship it in and import it then it saves money and is much better protected from a military conflict as we are seeing now.

The added benefit is that Taiwan, as much as the US loves it, is at odds with a much bigger trading partner and the other global power, atleast in paper. Removing tension by removing the US reliance on chips manufacturered there helps dramatically... to the detriment of Taiwan of course.

It removes a key point of need for the US paving the way to pull back ambiguity. I bet you'll see a true language shift in the rhetoric by politicians about the defense of Taiwan as soon as that plant is up and going.

"Dos equis" I guarantee it!


eiamhere69 t1_itzigf6 wrote

The waters surrounding Taiwan and other parts of this region are extremely important trade routes.

Not to mention, having a few fabrication plants up and running is not nearly enough to fulfil world wide demand.

The US fans are first and foremost are protection and deterrent, against China taking Taiwan soon. It's well known, this is there long time goal and will inevitably be acted upon at some point.

Taiwan know if they give up all fabrication (not that this can be done quickly), it leaves them wide open, so only a few fabs have been negotiated.

It's still a very long road. All he above is just a very, very rudimentary political assessment and doesn't even touch on the economics.


OccasinalMovieGuy t1_iu196oa wrote

Considering that the experts in such fields won't cross a few thousands, in case of an war, USA would already have plans to evacuate them. US intelligence can sniff out if Taiwan would be invaded and they can shift the experts to either Japan or Korea within days.


Smaggies t1_itzi8z9 wrote

Containing China is the US's primary reason for defending Taiwan. Leverage is more appropriate because Taiwan absolutely will not be losing US protection because of this.


JRizzie86 t1_iu03nqc wrote

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

For real seems China IS coming for Taiwan, which puts the US at a difficult crossroads. If the US has their own means of manufacturing chips there is no doubt they will avoid direct conflict with China.


alienlizardlion t1_itz69uj wrote

Reading back I knew it wasn’t the right word but the context conveyed what I wanted so I was too lazy to go back. Security assurance is more like it.


notrab t1_iu0yqzb wrote

Where do you think the US military gets their chips for advanced missel systems?


Badtrainwreck t1_itzrpwy wrote

It’s hard to say if it’s just propaganda, The Taiwanese lead the market and they decide who gets the best, and if that knowledge and expertise is exported. They obviously have a a political reason to not give America everything it wants.

However us Americans have no stomachs for short term losses to achieve long term gain. If no one is willing to hold our hands through the billions we’d need to throw away just to play pretend chip maker then we will never get to the finish line of being not only independent but dominate. Participation is easy, but leading has a cost that not everyone is willing to pay


Specialist_Teacher81 t1_ityvsli wrote

Doomed to fail, because we are off of the standard supply routes, and our costs are prohibitively expensive. We could make it work, but that would require tariffs and other laws to stifle outside competition for computer chips. But that would require biting into corporate profits, which as as much chance of passing in the U.S. government as a snowball in hell.


G3sch4n t1_itywfce wrote

It is a security issue first. Modern military hardware uses a shit load of chips. So if necessary it would have to be subsidized until is financially viable.


[deleted] t1_itz50qr wrote



narciblog t1_itz8oaw wrote

Without Wi-Fi, how is my coffee maker going to download firmware updates?


ThankFSMforYogaPants t1_itzmma0 wrote

Military stuff is crazy low volume. Unit costs would be astronomical.

And security vulnerabilities in IoT devices are a systemic risk. They create vectors for attack.


vhu9644 t1_itz8s07 wrote

Well you’re half right.

Nothing stops is from making these chips commercially. But right now we just don’t know how to make these chips at a competitive yield. Sure we can make chips that work at the highest level. They just also come with a much larger failure rate than is competitively viable.


patrickstarpenishead t1_itzbh7n wrote

I work defense. The amount of money we have to spend to get US made chips is absurd. Every part has to be domestic.


wubbbalubbadubdub t1_itz5a6u wrote

You should have written the article, you seem to know more about the subject than the writer.


Specialist_Teacher81 t1_itz5qv5 wrote

If opinions upset you, you are in the wrong place buddy.


wubbbalubbadubdub t1_itzdigs wrote

Your opinions didn't upset me at all, I'm saying the guy who wrote the article is crap because he didn't include any of those reasons to back up the quote he repeated twice.


kofine05 t1_iu7wddb wrote

The US has several unsavory cards up it's sleeve that would allow it to be competitive with eastern chip making countries if it's people are willing to hold their noses.

  1. We have a constant supply of immagrants from South America looking for work and are willing to work for cheap. Even if chip creation factories don't hire them directly their presence alone will drive wage demands down. This is only possible by expanding green card access. Make it simple to enter the US if you promise to find a job.

  2. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency. This makes it very very easy to loan out cheap money for building.

  3. The US has the wealth to cut taxes on chip production and factory creation to zero if it so chooses.

  4. The US has the number 1 internal market demand for chips. Companies can make class leading profits selling to the North American markets only. Abroad sales are not a requirement for success.


olearygreen t1_itz4t3s wrote

Protectionism always hurts the protectionist.

It will make everything more expensive, harder to export and require more protectionist measures that require our companies to compete less with the world having eventually a negative effect on National Security due to messer products. Ask Russia how that works out.


Specialist_Teacher81 t1_itz5vyk wrote

There are no absolutes, unrestricted free trade also has bad outcomes. You need a measured approach, not ideologies.


ked_man t1_ityx54w wrote

China probably paid for the article to be written.


vhu9644 t1_ityxkk5 wrote

No, China wants US semiconductors to get parity. It makes protecting Taiwan less important to the US, meaning they have an easier time reclaiming it.

Taiwan has strategic value to China beyond semiconductors


PHATsakk43 t1_ityydeb wrote

US defense policy towards Taiwan has really not been tied very well to Taiwan's advanced semiconductor technology. I think that kids believe this to be the only thing, but it is a far longer history.

There was absolutely no industry of value when Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons in the mainland to stabilize the control of the KMT led ROC there in the 1950s. In many ways, the US commitment to Taiwanese sovereignty today is less than when it had virtually zero hi tech industries.


vhu9644 t1_itz1rqc wrote

Oh but the reasoning was different then.

Anti-communism was strong then, and arguably not as strong now. The PRC was much shittier of a power. The American people then were more willing to do what it took to be the hegemon.

Now, China is less communist, more powerful, and the Americans more isolationist. My view is that the US is less interested in Taiwan now because domestically there is less support for maintaining this and destabilizing that region.

I could be wrong. I’m definitely a kid in the sense I wasn’t alive back then. But from my read on history, we’re supportive of Taiwanese sovereignty, but it’s not as strong as it used to be, and Taiwan losing semiconductor priority would also decrease that support.


ghoonrhed t1_itzk63f wrote

There's also the economic impact. There's no way after seeing covid and Russia the world or the USA would want war with China if it wasn't for something as important as semiconductors.

It'll make the current economic problems seem like child's play.


reddit-MT t1_iu0006u wrote

As much as China wants to take Taiwan, it's hard to believe that they wouldn't rather have Taiwan with the chip industry intact. I just see the advanced chip industry as being more strategically important than the island. Right now, they can plausibly blockade the island where they can't blockade Texas. If the diminished Taiwanese semiconductor narrative were correct, they would much rather a new chip fab be opened in an adjacent country they have influence over, than in the US. If anything, it's a silver lining. A consolation prize for losing influence of the semiconductor industry versus a goal or a win.


vhu9644 t1_iu08ox5 wrote

I think the more strategic importance is cementing internal legitimacy (domestic stability) while ensuring open sea access. They don’t care about blockading taiwan. They care about Taiwan blockading they (with our blessing)

SMIC sucks, but they don’t suck that bad. IIRC they’re like 1-3 generations behind, but again, not capitalist so yield matters a bit less. ASML not selling EUV to them is a big setback, but only time will tell if it is an insurmountable one.


reallyfuckingay t1_ityzhkh wrote

wouldn't it be the other way around? wouldn't Taiwan stand to lose if Americans were confident they didn't have to rely on them for chip production?


IKENTHINGS t1_itzg96j wrote

China wants a monopoly. No more computer chips for you.


[deleted] t1_ityxvoo wrote



Ktn44 t1_ityy2a0 wrote

Which companies exactly?


Gogo6799 t1_ityyvvf wrote

Also which country does that apply to ? Who is "our" referring to ?


[deleted] t1_ityzlgr wrote



Ktn44 t1_ityzs9k wrote

So.... US companies own Chinese companies alongside the Chinese government. Which is entirely different from what you said.


Nazario3 t1_itz0xck wrote

This has absolutely nothing to do with the other comment?!


ten-million t1_itz185g wrote

Are you sure, according to the facts above, that the US is not controlling Chinese media?

There is interconnectedness. Why does control only go one way?


Rustbeard t1_iu0th2i wrote

I'm not sure of anything. I googled and copied what I saw. I never made a claim.


QryptoQid t1_ityyi92 wrote

So, "major business says it's so awesome, you shouldn't even bother trying to compete with it."


UpvoteIfYouReddit t1_itz3f25 wrote

Tell that too the 5.5 billion dollar intel building I’ve been working at here in Ohio doomed my ass


T20suave t1_ityv0rd wrote

They are building a 12 billion dollar site in Arizona currently. Would you spend 12 billion on something knowing it was going to be doomed??


HrottiHrottalegi t1_ityvbco wrote



big_throwaway_piano t1_ityzdzk wrote

ruSSia was hopeful and Germany clueless - neither of them knew how things were going to unfold.

Perhaps Poland or Czechia knew instinctively that ruSSian culture is going to do the ruSSian thing... but not Germany.


cesium-sandwich t1_itzhjx3 wrote

Germany was like "Haha Russia, vee had a fun time yes? Vee invade you! You invade us! Vee lose ze var! Now we are cool yes? now you vill send us gas because vee are buddies?! Ok cool vee vill build ze pipeline! ... Oh you have blown it up! Vell zat sucks! Veleicht vee vill send some AA to your neighbor!!"


Visionioso t1_itz4pv0 wrote

They sensationalized his argument. He approved of small scale fabs for strategically critical chips but warns against trying to upend the whole supply chain. He argues the costs for that is an order of magnitude higher than current proposals and should be Renewed every year for more than a decade to have a chance. Otherwise it’s money down the drain. The current fab is only viable because US is funding half of it. In the big picture it’s not worth it.


taimoor2 t1_ityyepc wrote

Look at solar panel industry in the US.


HereAndThereButNow t1_iu2hdmp wrote

Isn't that the one that'll never be profitable because of the insane amount of water it'll need to dredge up in a state that isn't famous for having a lot of water?


Narf234 t1_itz6qlp wrote

I read that it won’t be as advanced as tsmc’s most advanced products.


LeStiqsue t1_iu1ty6o wrote

...thats about 888 billion less than what TSMC's foundry in Taiwan costs, I thought. But I could be wrong, I'm not any kind of expert.


CriticallyThougt t1_ityxz7c wrote

Well no shit they would say that TSMC has a near monopoly on manufacturing semis. Of course they would want to protect that but having some major foundry’s outside of the reach of China and in the west is pretty critical. I wouldn’t care if it’s in England, Australia or wherever, the west desperately needs a foundry or two if we’re going to compete with China in an AI/arms race. The irony of this is that Intel will probably fuck it up somehow anyway.


ProbablyTeasingYou t1_iu2q5ky wrote

Intel announced today they will shed 10 billion in expenses and the only specific course of action mentioned is to "optimize our headcount." They again show they offer no real loyalty to their employees and always go straight for the layoffs in hard times. That is a bold and thinly veiled statement from a company that is already having a difficult time finding talent. Intel stock went up, but this looks like a simple, easy answer for a complex problem imho.


snack--bandit t1_ityzd04 wrote

TSMC exists in a very unique position and they are correct. The gist of what chip war the book is about is that no matter how much money people throw at the problem it won't help. TSMC creates all of the world's most advanced chips and the processes are so refined and so difficult to pull off no one country can do it alone. Any war will shut down the fab potentially permanently.


IndyJohn2010 t1_itzqh0w wrote

All the more reason to try to create an alternative to TSMC


reddit-MT t1_iu00ds7 wrote

It will take time, but it's easier to re-invent the wheel once you know that the wheel is possible and some details, and former employees, are available.


littleMAS t1_itzoi2k wrote

TSMC not only has the most advanced fab processes but also the supply chain to deliver globally. It would take an America company such as Intel a long time to replicate TSMC in both ways. We are just not set up for it today, but it is not impossible. The best way to make it happen is for the head of TSMC to rub our noses in it and say we could never do it.


flaagan t1_iu1ttue wrote

>The best way to make it happen is for the head of TSMC to rub our noses in it and say we could never do it.

Wasn't there a Simpsons episode where Homer had to land a plane, and whoever was coaching him in 'motivated' him by saying someone out there said he couldn't do it?


slowpokesardine t1_itz0wqu wrote

I don't know if it is just me, but this article reads like a propaganda pamphlet with little reasoning.


throwaway836282672 t1_itznzt2 wrote

I think the author misunderstood the point of the production: self sufficiency and independence. The United States isn't manufacturing enough chips to meet global demand - full stop. Perhaps in the future... but not now.


Kevin_Jim t1_ityyggz wrote

It depends. If the US somehow get access to ASML’s next gen machines, they they could get ahead.


random_testaccount t1_iu28gi8 wrote

The US can just buy them


Kevin_Jim t1_iu39rgi wrote

It’s not that simple. There are state interests at play and Netherland would probably not allow such a thing. The US managed to force the company from selling their latest machinery to China, though.


random_testaccount t1_iu49e9a wrote

ASML's entire business is building and selling those machines. TSMC in Taiwan uses ASML machines. Samsung in South Korea uses ASML machines. Intel in the US uses ASML machines. Chip manufacturing in the Netherlands is virtually zero.

The US was able to ban ASML from exporting these machines to China because a patent held on the deep ultra violet technology was developed using US federal funding.


-V8- t1_itz38gr wrote

What happens to that company called brainchip? Weren't they ment to start making millions of semiconductors?


Eislemike t1_itz3koz wrote

Triffin s Dilemma. The dollar will be too strong in the foreseeable future for many exports to make sense.


Staticoli t1_itz6mit wrote

So what they're saying is that their new fab in Arizona is going to fail?


silencecalls t1_itzbib1 wrote

Hmmm…. Did someone forget to tell them that about 75% of Intel fabs are in the US?

The US isn’t rebuilding, US is encouraging expansion.


Sir_Loppy t1_itzek1v wrote

chinese propaganda


old-hand-2 t1_itzf77y wrote

“If you try to do what we do, you are doomed to fail.”

Hmm. Thanks but no thanks.


IKENTHINGS t1_itzfnzu wrote

US environmental policies do not allow wafer fabrication. They can build a wafer fab, but the EPA will shut it down due to hazardous chemicals esp in proximity to residential neighborhoods. Silicon Valley polluted a lot of cities before being shut down. Can’t happen in the US unless you confiscate all of those land trusts and make them foundries. In case you want to see the type of environmental damage, take a look at the superfund sites in California.


No0delZ t1_itzy2on wrote

Without doing any research, that was probably one of the reasons Arizona was chosen.


[deleted] t1_itzhjsg wrote

So I didn't pick up the reason, it's "doomed to fail" is that just me, being the bad reader I am, or, was it not really mentioned?


BeKind_BeTheChange t1_itzkz4d wrote

Stupid article apparently written by a bot.

So, TSMC is building the fab complex in Phoenix to help the USA? Seriously? I do not a believe that a human typed those words.


trtlclb t1_iu0ebyh wrote

Only true if they don't leverage AI & recent advances in automation, and think they need to hire gobs of people because jobs. Which... They're making semiconductors, so one would hope they're not idiots.


aidanpryde98 t1_iu0wsh2 wrote

More folks should look into the size and scope of the company that is TSMC. It isn't something you just throw some money at, and can instantly compete with.

We absolutely need to build chip fabs in the US. But thinking that we will even sniff what TSMC does, even after a decade, is American bravado at its finest.


TrueInfogirl t1_iu36yj5 wrote

The new US fabs cost tens of $Billions to build, to be operated with very high labor costs, and the chip products are banned from selling to the biggest market in the world, China. Or, more likely, by the time these new fabs are up and running, China should have already master the 5nm 2mn mass production. Never underestimate China speed and efficiency.
Anyone with more than few brain cells should already figure it out that the US chip Act is doomed to fail. Look at Intel f*cking up for over two decades and will continue to f*ck up no matter what.


NaBUru38 t1_iu7rg2i wrote

TSMC says resistance is futile.


BooBear_13 t1_itz2fuj wrote

Well putting a new factory in fucking Ohio is a pretty stupid idea. Who the hell wants to live in Ohio making computer chips…


[deleted] t1_itz5sg7 wrote

>Who the hell wants to live in Ohio making computer chips…

Ohio is an okay place to live though :(


wrath_of_grunge t1_itz7f97 wrote

then how come Ohio produces such a large number of astronauts, who seem bound and determined to get as far away from it as possible?


Talkshowhostt t1_itzdi2f wrote

Get paid a lot of dollars, to work on complex problems, to live in a low cost of living area? Ummm..


feelsmagical t1_itz61lg wrote

A US company should buy TSMC and move the operations to US and offer all employees citizenship. It’s a matter of national security.


Dansk72 t1_iu0n6tk wrote

TSMC is already building the $12 Billion, 1,100 acre fab in Arizona, so I don't think that will be necessary.


mjh2901 t1_iu2fqyw wrote

TSMC runs 3 shifts the fab never shuts down. It would take a couple years to move and reset the hardware, assuming a building was already in existence. Plus a lot of the fab would probably not survive shipping.


monchota t1_itzam3x wrote

This was probably written for Chinese state media, then translated here. No its not doomed to fail, China is just upset the US is going to cut them out.


vhu9644 t1_itzdnts wrote

Taiwan isn’t China. Tsmc is Taiwanese.


monchota t1_itzdxpe wrote

Obviously and im not even going to try ans explain why China doesn't want the US to have its own chips.


vhu9644 t1_itzfdrh wrote

> Obviously and im not even going to try ans explain why China doesn't want the US to have its own chips.


How does that line up with > This was probably written for Chinese state media, then translated here. No its not doomed to fail, China is just upset the US is going to cut them out.

China wants the US to stop relying on Taiwan. It’s another reason for the US to care less about them.

The US has the capability to make top-line chips, just not at competitive yields. China can’t make the chips. It’s a whole different realm of difference here.

We don’t really rely on China for our chips. We rely on Taiwan


LeepII t1_iu1q3gy wrote

TSMC stole our process after our CEO sold us out and let them come into our US fab and copy the recipes directly from our machines by hand. Turns out our CEO was on TSMC's board.


Specialist_Teacher81 t1_ityvi4i wrote

Duh! There is a reason the industry left the U.S. Subsidizing it will just be a money pit and get you substandard product. You need to change the way the U.S. does business to make that feasible. And we ain't doing that.


[deleted] t1_ityv3q3 wrote



the_simurgh t1_ityvnyh wrote

with renewed tensions with russia and china. the entire region of cheap labor overseas is about to become unstable.

companies were already leaving mexico due to the organized crime rendering the area unprofitable and unsafe.


YuanBaoTW t1_itywf0j wrote

> the entire region of cheap labor overseas is about to become unstable.

One should also consider that the US is the primary security detail for the world's trade routes.

For example, China isn't able to secure its oil shipments from the Mideast. It piggybacks on the security the US provides. If China had to pay for its own security...


the_simurgh t1_itywn19 wrote

that's why i said renewed tensions. the USA basically protects china in a hundred ways that as their aggression towards the united states ramps up i expect to stop


_-_Naga-_- t1_ityt5qa wrote

Sounds like a far cry for slave labour, fat chance buddy we're keeping our freedom.


wubbbalubbadubdub t1_ityu4ln wrote

TSMC is Taiwanese and doesn't use slave labour.


AwfulEveryone t1_ityu9fo wrote

Is that the same freedom that has a minimum wage below what is needed to sustain a one person household with a single job?


rickymourke82 t1_itz23ls wrote

The minimum wage argument is weak. Working 20 hours a week making minimum wage in the US puts you in the top quarter of income on the global scale. Statistics bear out that majority of people in the US are making $10 or more an hour above minimum wage. We also have the most progressive tax code in the world. Our problem isn’t a weak minimum wage, it’s the complete waste and incompetence of government to do anything with it. You know why housing is so unaffordable in the US and western world? Because our elected leaders have sold us out to their banker and lawyer friends. The minimum wage argument is for people who don’t want to admit the policies they’ve supported over the years have been complete failures.


_-_Naga-_- t1_iu2jhhm wrote

That freedom you're referring to had long been hi jacked by presscott bush.

Ironically ww2 was won and lost almost exactly at the same time.


_-_Naga-_- t1_ityuddy wrote

Socialism is one thing capatilism is another. As long as people demand an equality in work place better conditions are achievable.


HrottiHrottalegi t1_ityvg46 wrote

Taiwan is more like a social democracy... it's capitalist with social benefits, like the nordic countries


_-_Naga-_- t1_ityvn6k wrote

Wait until you learn where some of the boards of directors are from.


mwaaahfunny t1_ityv811 wrote

Sounds like unions. And that unions should have a say in how a company is run. Which is the path to socialism. Not saying that's bad. But that is how people demand equality in the workplace


Original_Chicken_698 t1_ityw034 wrote

Socialism is the means of production being owned by the community as a whole, not the workforce. Workers banding together to ensure full value from their labor through collective bargaining is one of the best examples of capitalism as it pertains to the blue collar worker… Socialism would be elected officials negotiating on behalf of the worker at the behest of the entire populace.

You need to go look up what socialism actually means…


SleazierPolarBear t1_itywxxb wrote

You are conflating the broad definition of socialism with a very specific implementation of socialism.

“Means of production being owned by the community” means many different things in many different models.

The most straight forward (and closest to “default”) method of organizing this is for the specific workers that use a specific means of production to have “ownership” of it. It makes no sense for Baker Becky in Arkansas to have a vote on what Machinist Marty in Florida does throughout the course of their workday.


Original_Chicken_698 t1_ityxrcs wrote

Again, I think you need to actually look up what socialism is instead of typing these walls of nonsense. Unionization is literally capitalism for the working class. Workers monopolizing their labor for maximum value. Just because they have perceived similar aims, the betterment of workplaces, doesn’t make them the same or even remotely the same.


SleazierPolarBear t1_itz128y wrote

Again, I think you need to do more than an inch deep look into what socialism actually is instead of typing these walls of nonsense.

I said nothing about unions. I pointed out the problem in your definition of socialism in that you are either mistakenly, or purposefully, conflated a broad category with a specific implementation.

“Owned by the community” means something a bit different in the man iterations of proposed socialism. Unions being a pathway to worker ownership of the means of production is an idea goes back longer than you have been alive.

You sound like you’ve taken the first sentence of the wiki on socialism and make all your conclusions. Do better bro.


Original_Chicken_698 t1_itz8i0c wrote

It’s not the first sentence of any wiki, it’s just acknowledging what it is. Socialism isn’t some broad, undefinable word. It has a very tight definition as to what it is… The Marxian command structure literally doesn’t have spot for independent unions and no iteration since snd in between actually includes independent unions. Claiming unions are a socialist concept is and always has been an attempt to court blue collar union workers to accept socialist concepts when in reality the heart of socialism would turn the fruits of union productivity snd labor into community property.

You don’t get to just redefine the word socialism into whatever fits your argument. Socialism is a set of beliefs about governance, workers banding together within one one sector or one workplace is not… Two things aiming for similar results none very specific category of societal good don’t make them the same thing. Which is why every poll shows actual union members vote evenly split across political parties and are over 60% neutral towards socialism.


SleazierPolarBear t1_itz90uk wrote

Marxism was communism, and only one specific school of thought amongst many similar philosophies at the time.

Socialists were the reason unions exploded in industrialized societies because they recognized the opportunity to grasp a form of economic power within an existing hierarchical structure. You could never implement worker ownership of means of production without some leverage over the existing hierarchy.

Dude you have NOT done the reading on this shit. Just stop.


Original_Chicken_698 t1_itzmid7 wrote

I didn't say Marxism. I said Marxian... But I'm assuming you're actually what you're accusing me of, someone who scans wikipedia to form an argument he has already made and thus you don't know that 19th century Socialist movements, the basis for modern socialist beliefs, literally derive their definition of socialism from Karl Marx's writings...

And no, unions exploded because the industrial revolution and its emphasis on productivity and value. And the pioneers of labor unions were undoubtedly driven by the Ricardian labor theory of value, which is inarguably a capitalist theory. The leaders of both the Knights of Labor and the NLU, which were at the forefront of the labor movement, were driven by this.

You're fucking stupid and have literally no idea what you're talking about. But your argument about unions being an achievement of socialism is a pretty good example of socialism in that it takes the accomplishments of others and attempts to dole them out to those uninvolved.


SleazierPolarBear t1_itzno2p wrote

Tldr. You ruined the credibility needed to pay that much attention already.

Have a good one.


Original_Chicken_698 t1_itzo7zx wrote

Tldr; Go back to Twitter with your C-average elementary school education where you belong instead of pretending to plug your ears because you know you don't have a retort to the pioneers of labor movements literally preaching capitalistic economic theories.

If you want socialism to succeed, stop trying to champion it because you're an idiot who makes it look bad.


Substantial_Boiler t1_itywgzq wrote

This is TSMC we're talking about, buddy. Pretty sure that slaves won't be producing high-end chips any time soon.


_-_Naga-_- t1_iu2ghb1 wrote

Not if they want revenue boost


Substantial_Boiler t1_iu2hlip wrote

You literally need highly skilled and trained workers to build high end chips. It's not a matter of having a revenue boost or not, unless if you want a 0% yield


[deleted] t1_iu2hwrj wrote



Substantial_Boiler t1_iu2qzbn wrote

Do you even have evidence that TSMC is using slaves? Competitors like SMIC are already trying to lure talent from TSMC but you see minimal to no talent leak.

I get that you're trying to sound edgy and cool, but you aren't making any sense in this context