Chipset-producing corporations in the context of the current economic system


Dude, I so don’t get your point and you keep changing the discussion. I’m out and if the other @moderators agree I think it’s best to close this topic, as it’s leading nowhere.


The initial point was that right now the world is not moving towards the interest of consumers. It seems like it is so but that’s just the illusion of “progress” we are fed and are brainwashed with.

This is why I initially proposed decentralized processor companies as we don’t want our cellphones to be comprised by corporates and all of our data used. This is why I’m saying, the solution to this should come from us, consumers rather than corporates who feed us products, they own. We are the owners of those products.

@paulakreuzer A good step in the right direction for “positive progression” is not shutting down threads you don’t see the point of or don’t understand. There are people that would want to read, learn & share. Not everybody thinks the same. Thank you!

@moderators, please don’t close this topic as I would be very interested in hearing other thoughts on this subject if any user reads this thread and is interested in sharing.


I don’t see many dezentralized processor companies could become a reality, but a worker-owned processor manufacturer could become a reality. You need a lot of know-how and specialized machines to produce chips so it’s not really simple to enter the market. Chinese workers would have to unite and open their own factory, including engineers etc. Not so easy in an oppressing country…


I can’t follow what is going on in this topic, it’s so hypothetical and seemingly random as a discussion.

There are better ways of having a discussion about dismantling the capitalist state, and unfortunately I don’t think this is the space. A cooperative might be a way to challenge the hegemony, but actually co-operatives still remain operating within the capitalist machinery.

I would agree that generally speaking topics should be allowed to run their course but @Paranoir you’ve asked for thoughts and challenged those that have expressed thoughts and I don’t see that this discussion is leading to any useful outcome. I do agree it’s interesting, but you need to create an academic thesis and not a etherial, hypothetical one. So sorry, I would suggest we leave the discussion here and move on.



I see your points and agree with you on quite a lot of points.
Yet, to turn your ideas into reality, you need another mankind.
Complaining about being oppressed by capital and people with lots of money is aimed at an easy (and in a way correct) target. But those are humans too. And what the super rich are doing visible to everyone happens all around you all the time just at a smaller scale. The ones having more are dominating the ones having less.
And according to my experience more than 90% of all people grab their chance at having an advantage over others, like getting a job because father/mother/uncle/aunt are influential enough.

As far as I know, there is at least no reason to believe, that humans in former times have been kinder, more social and less egoistic. No matter what books tell you; btw. I would not know, why scientists (and I happen to know a few) would want to tell you nonsense about historic societies hundreds of years ago.

You don’t mean to tell me, that the internet is a great source of information? Rather the contrary is the case, as it’s even harder to sort out all the crap, while good information is like the needle in a haystack. Scientific research on the other hand has to present it’s sources and methods and can be checked and challenged by everyone.
I would never state, that such a thing as truth exists and that science is unbiased. But you seem to insinuate, that scientists are in general not trustworthy and research is an instrument of controled misinformation. But maybe I am exaggerating and misinterpreting you. At least I can assure you, that independent research really exists.
On the following quote I really would like to ask you, what you mean to make of it.

Although I generally would agree with you, the conclusions you are drawing from it are essential.
As the french revolution has - to me, that I “believe” in history - proved, where it can end when you start out knowing what*s best for the uneducated people, one has to be really careful before telling others what’s best for them or the community.
Who’s to decide, what’s best for the community?
Who’s prioritizing the tasks?
One might think to know, what’s best; but as time often has shown, this later proved to be wrong.
For example I would expect quite a lot of the wealthy and mighty people nowadays to truly believe that what they are doing is to the best of mankind. Even though this might seem ridiculous to most people, I would not deny them to be convinced of doing the right and most sensible thing. (I guess we all can watch an example of this right now in world politics.)

In all:
I really would wish for a more community oriented society being focussed more on values than money. Alone, judging by my experience, the humans forming our society today sadly are not like that.


We might not know much about 10.000s of years ago, but we know a lot about the last few hundred years. That was the time I used for comparison.

Yes is can. It is important to learn from the past and it is important to have a reference to compare against. Any ways, you did not say how you think it should be, yet. [quote=“Paranoir, post:21, topic:33252”]
It’s the same. It fits better with our times and we see it as progress, but the end is absolutely the same.

It is absolutely not. In slavery, a human is degraded to an object in another humans possession. That is not the same as having a dept.[quote=“Paranoir, post:21, topic:33252”]
Illusions are dangerous. Don’t be tricked.

The same applies to you. Don’t be so arrogant to think that I have another position as you because I lack knowledge or education you have. That is a common fallacy. You keep mentioning a few books and talks, why do you think they posses a truth I have not been told yet? Why do you warn me of being tricked but still but so much trust in those?[quote=“Paranoir, post:21, topic:33252”]
Discoveries come with time, so of course as we go, people are going to die at a later age and have more technology and other “discovery” related advancements. It doesn’t mean anything!!!

Oh yes, it means a lot. It means more time to enjoy nice food, friends, love, learn, improve, change, educate…[quote=“Paranoir, post:21, topic:33252”]
The goal is to LIVE your time and be aware.

That might be adequate goal for you, but not for everyone.[quote=“Paranoir, post:23, topic:33252”]
. It seems like it is so but that’s just the illusion of “progress” we are fed and are brainwashed with.

I can’t even read the word brainwashed anymore. Your are going in circles. And your seem to only want to make a point. If you engage in a discussion, you cannot assume you hold the ultimate truth and all others need to be educated to see it. I think you made your brainwashed claim often enough.

In general, I would be interested to get back to the discussion about if a processor company owned by “the people” is a required, necessary or even possible or useful next step. So here it goes:

I don’t think the factories in China are the first and foremost problem. The problems I see are finding and developing a design that is compatible but patents free? Or, if a licensed design, was used, it is about costs and financing.

Anyways, I find the idea of a company that is owned by it’s customers interesting, but I still argue that starting with SoC is too complicated.

I agree.


Since 3 out of 5 participants of this discussion called for it, I’m closing this thread.




This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.