Monday, August 21, 2023

Morris Chang's Last Speech

 
https://interconnected.blog/morris-changs-last-speech/

Morris Chang's Last Speech

    Author and founder of Interconnected. See "About Interconnected" for more information.

    More posts by Kevin Xu.
    Kevin Xu

Kevin Xu
12 Sep 2021
English
中文

Today’s post is the translation of a speech Morris Chang delivered on the history and future of TSMC and the semiconductor industry at large in April. Chang is the founder and two-time CEO of TSMC, now 90-years-old and retired. The audience of the speech was Taiwanese government officials and business leaders. (See full video of original speech here.)

I wrote a tweet thread and full analysis of this speech in May, specifically on what Chang thought was the future competitive dynamic between TSMC/Taiwan, the US, China, and South Korea. (Spoiler alert: Chang believes Samsung of South Korea is the most fierce competitor of TSMC.)

    Morris Chang, the now 90 years old founder of TSMC, gave a speech (in Mandarin) last week (ht @ruima)

    Among other things, he shared personal views on Taiwan's advantages + sized up competition from 🇺🇸🇨🇳🇰🇷

    Thread of highlights + his slides in traditional Chinese👇 pic.twitter.com/SWaKHpARua
    — Kevin Xu (@kevinsxu) April 27, 2021

But there is so much more to this hour-long, exception-worthy speech, because Chang is the only person among the “founding fathers” of semiconductor technology still alive and lucid. Gordon Moore is alive, but as Chang noted in his speech, in poor health and retiring in Hawaii. Both Jack Kilby and Bob Noyce have passed away. All of these industry luminaries are Chang’s contemporaries, with whom Chang has gone to conferences in their younger days -- sharing dreams and ambitions over beers. Given how crucial understanding semiconductors is to the future of our world -- technologically and geopolitically -- it’s worth learning from one of the people who started it all, unfiltered.

In this translation are also screenshots of the slides (in traditional Chinese) Chang used during his speech. Just like what I did with our translation of Zhang Yiming’s last speech, I’ve bolded noteworthy phrases and passages throughout. I hope you enjoy reading and learning from it.
Subscribe to Interconnected Premium

First of all, thank you very much, President Huang and Editor-in-Chief Fei of the Economic Daily News, for giving me this opportunity to speak on a topic that I have felt is very important in the past year or two. I would also like to thank all the distinguished guests who have come to speak here, Chairman Mark Liu and President CC Wei of TSMC, all the distinguished guests who have come to listen, and friends from the media.

Ladies and gentlemen, the title of my speech today is "Cherishing the Advantages of Taiwan's Semiconductor Wafer Manufacturing", and this speech is an appeal from me to the Taiwanese government, Taiwanese society, and TSMC.

My status is a TSMC retiree, and I no longer have any authority inside the company, which is my choosing, so TSMC is also a very important audience of what I’m advocating for in my speech today.

Because I already know that the vast majority of the audience is not in the tech community, much less the semiconductor community. So I would like to talk a little bit about the history of semiconductors, otherwise jumping straight into the key point —— the advantages of Taiwan's semiconductor wafer manufacturing —— might be too confusing.

This is the PowerPoint I made today. The first chapter starts with a brief history of semiconductors; the second chapter talks about the importance of semiconductors and why they have become a must-have for politicians and geopolitics. Then I will talk about the division of labor in the semiconductor industry. If it were not for this division of labor, we would not have the problems we have today. This division of labor started decades ago.

The fourth chapter will be the main topic - Taiwan's advantages in wafer manufacturing; the fifth one will be the fab-centered semiconductor industry chain, because the impact of wafer manufacturing on Taiwan is definitely not only on TSMC. TSMC’s wafer manufacturing has also driven a lot of other upstream, downstream and midstream industries.

Sixth, I’ll talk about the founding of the professional wafer manufacturing industry, that is, the founding of TSMC. This took people, opportunities, and a bit of luck or coincidence to happen (风云际会). It’s very rare so I think it’s hard to produce even one example from an entire generation. Seventh, TSMC's success; eighth, TSMC's status today; in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters, I want to look at our foreign competitors, the United States, mainland China, and South Korea. These three are the most important competitors, although, of course, there are also Japan, Europe. However, because my topic today is wafer manufacturing, comparatively speaking, the United States, mainland China, and South Korea are our important competitors.

Finally, the twelfth point, since now people often say, "ah, we can have another so-called 'protective mountain of the nation'” (护国神山, i.e. an industry or company as influential to Taiwan as TSMC), I also want to talk about the possibility of producing the next "protective mountain of the nation." And lastly, the conclusion.

A Brief History of Semiconductors

The conductivity of a semiconductor is between that of a conductor (metal) and an insulator (wood). You can control the conductivity of the semiconductor. In short it is between metal and wood, so we call it semiconductor.

But honestly, until 1948, semiconductor was a term only known to scientists. Ordinary people, those who majored in liberal arts, business, or law didn’t know what it was. Only scientists, especially physicists, knew. So it was a very small group in society back then.

In 1948, a major event in the semiconductor industry took place. AT&T, at that time the largest telecommunications company in the United States, had Bell Labs under it, which was a world class research institution for many decades. There were three physicists at Bell Labs. Shockley was their leader, and Bardeen and Brattain didn't really like him, but the three of them collaborated to invent the transistors, which were based on semiconductors. What they invented was very important, and that was the transistor.

What is important is that it (semiconductor transistor) is very small. Prior to its invention, vacuum tubes could be used to make transistors, but vacuum tubes are big. During the Second World War when the United States began to manufacture computers, a computer was so large in size, because of the use of vacuum tubes, that it could occupy an entire room.

I came to the United States in 1949, and didn't see any computers the first year I was there. I was at Harvard, and the place where the computers were was far away from my freshman dormitory, so I didn't go. The next year, in 1950, I went to MIT, saw a computer, and learned to code. The computer was full of vacuum tubes, occupying the whole room. Honestly, the functionality of a computer as big as a room was not as powerful as the cell phone you are carrying today.

But anyway, the transistor was invented in 1948, and AT&T knew how important it was. These three physicists —— Shockley and Bardeen were theoretical physicists and Brattain was an applied physicist —— won the Nobel Physics Prize for transistors in 1956, pretty soon after the invention. Bardeen went on to win a second Nobel Prize, but that's not relevant to our topic today.

Shockley was born in the same year as my mother, and I was his student at Stanford University, where I listened to his lectures. He was a good lecturer, but the most memorable thing was his arrogance. Many students, including me, were afraid to ask him questions because when we saw other students asking him questions, the first thing he did was not to answer the question, but to taunt the student, looking down on him for asking a simple question and saying that his question was really ridiculous. In such a situation, few students dared to ask him questions and just listened to his lectures.

In 1952, AT&T knew that one company could not monopolize the transistor because it was too important for the future, so it licensed the technology to many companies, including IBM and Texas Instruments (TI). Many companies began to produce it, dozens of companies, including such large companies as GE. IBM was already quite big, but GE and RCA were even bigger than IBM. At that time, TI was a very small company, but it was also a licensee. It would become the most successful one in later decades to come.

After that, computers and semiconductors began to develop in parallel, because computers needed semiconductors the most.

I joined the semiconductor industry in 1955 after receiving my Master's degree from MIT. The history of semiconductors was irrelevant to me until 1955, and after 1955 the history of semiconductors merged with my life story.

In 1958, I had just arrived at TI. A new colleague of mine, who, like me, had just joined TI, was Jack Kilby. He was eight years older than me, but we were contemporaries. He was working on integrated circuits, which the chairman of TI asked him to do.

Jack Kilby was a very innovative person. His education level was not high —— only Master’s and no PhD. If you talked to him about theoretical physics, he wouldn’t understand it, but he was innovative. He insisted that he was an engineer, and whenever someone said he was a scientist, he would immediately deny it and say, "I am an engineer". He later invented the integrated circuit, which happened under my eyes.

That same year, Bob Noyce (or Robert Noyce) was at Fairchild, and I had just met Bob Noyce at that time. We were together at the Washington IEDM, a technical conference held in Washington every December. Noyce and Gordon Moore, who I will talk about later, were at Fairchild. I had already joined TI at that time, and I had just joined. We were quite gentlemanly at the conference together, and not aggressive with each other yet.

After the meeting, Noyce, Moore, and I went out for a beer in the evening, and at that time I was only 27, Noyce was only 31, and Moore was only 29. We were all young and excited, and thought we were the “Favored Children of Heaven” (天之骄子, i.e. children of destiny), lucky to have joined the promising field of semiconductors. After drinks and dinner, we sang our way back to the hotel from the restaurant amidst the snow drifts.

Both of them, Kilby and Noyce, invented the integrated circuit almost at the same time. In fact, Kilby was a little earlier, about a month or two earlier. But honestly, although Kilby's was a little earlier, Noyce's was a planar construction while Kilby's was a bonded construction. Without Noyce's planar construction, integrated circuits would not have been made.

Later, after some legal disputes in the court or something, both sides —— TI and Fairchild —— settled, saying that the two people jointly invented the integrated circuit. Noyce unfortunately passed away very early, in 1990, at the age of 63. He lived a full life: had a lot of girlfriends, often flew his own plane, went diving and swimming, and played many other sports.

I think the next important thing (in semiconductor history) was Moore’s Law in 1965. Moore, at Fairchild, predicted that circuit density would double every 1.5 - 2 years, a prediction that came to be known as "Moore's Law" and remained quite valid until recently.

It’s been decades. Although Moore's Law is only a prediction, it has forced every company to double the circuit density every year and a half to two years, because by then the semiconductor industry was no longer gentlemanly —— companies already became aggressively competitive —— and everyone thought, “If I don’t double it, my competitors will.” So they tried their very best to do so. This was the important thing about Moore's Law. It was at first only a prediction, which might not have been true. In fact, if MOS (metal–oxide–semiconductor) was not invented, or I should say made practical, since it had existed, Moore's Law would not have been accurate. That was after Moore's Law was published, in around 1968, 1969.

Almost ten years ago, IEDM —— the same conference that I went to 50 years ago and sang my way back to the hotel —— invited me to speak on the biggest semiconductor innovations. I then put transistors and integrated circuits in the speech. I also put Moore's Law in it, because of what I just said, the pressure (to double the circuit density every 1.5 - 2 years). I also put MOS in it. MOS allows us to (let the circuit density) double, double, and double again. Lastly, I included chip foundry in the speech —— it was also listed as one of the important innovations in the history of the semiconductor industry.

From the 1980s to the present, semiconductor applications expanded rapidly, mainly PCs, and later, of course, cell phones etc. Why do I talk about the year of 1980? Because 1980 was when IBM released its PC, which universalized PCs. IBM was a big company at that time, so when people saw that IBM released a PC, they saw the PC as a legitimate thing, not just a toy. Before IBM, Apple and several small companies already came out with PCs, but people said, “hey, this might just be a toy.” IBM’s PC release in 1980 changed this notion.

Especially in the 90s. In the 80s, IBM came out and PCs became prevalent in the office, but in the 90s they became prevalent at home. Even housewives used them. I personally experienced this history and so had a deep impression of it. The 90s was also Andy Grove's era. Everyone always thinks that he is Intel's best, greatest CEO ever. This is really a case of, “Our times shape our heroes. Our heroes shape our times” (时势造英雄,英雄造时势). The 90s was the era of very rapid PC adoption, and Intel was almost exclusive in making processors, so the situation made Andy Grove a hero.

In 1987, Morris Chang established TSMC in Taiwan with a new business model, specializing in wafer manufacturing services. This was a disruptive innovation that disrupted the semiconductor industry, and I'll explain why in a moment. In 2020, TSMC became the world's largest semiconductor company by market capitalization.

Intel was the dominant player in the world's semiconductor industry for decades, from the late 1980s until recently. TI's period of dominance was from the 60s to mid-80s. Last year, TSMC reached its highest market cap at $600 billion, when Intel had just over $200 billion, less than half of TSMC. However, what will happen after this is not certain.

In 2021, Intel, the former dominant player, announced that they are also going to provide wafer manufacturing services. This is quite ironic to me. Originally they were the dominant player, and frankly they looked down on wafer manufacturing, thinking that this thing couldn't do much. I was acquainted with them, so at first I sought investment from Intel. At that time, in 1985, TSMC was raising capital, but the timing was not right and the economy was not good, so Intel refused to invest.

However, after TSMC was established, Intel, Andy Grove, and Gordon Moore helped a lot, but they never thought that this foundry business model would become so important; nor did they ever think that one day they would also do wafer manufacturing. Of course, Gordon Moore is now in very bad health and lives on Big Island, Hawaii. Noyce, as I just said, has died, and Andy Grove has also passed away.


I’ve talked about history for a long time, so now we can go a little faster. The importance of semiconductors can be first of all seen in national defense: missile navigation, GPS, this is another small story.

Now we are very familiar with GPS because all the cars have it. The first time I heard about GPS was at TI. I had top-secret clearance at TI, and was in charge of semiconductors. TI had a defence system division and they needed integrated circuits to do GPS to navigate the missile. I heard them talk about it and thought that it was super cool, “how can it hit within 5 ft diameter of a target from thousands of miles away?” This was in the 70s. Now every car has GPS.

Semiconductors are ubiquitous now, in commerce, industry, and daily life, from computers to cell phones. And of course, Covid19 has accelerated the global digital transformation.
Division of Labor in the Semiconductor Industry

Originally, when I first joined the semiconductor field in 1955, there was no division of labor in the industry. Every company did everything by themselves. They did IC design —— sorry, there was no IC in 1955. It was transistors, but a few years later there would be IC. IC design needed design tools, but each company would do it on their own. Design is actually quite technology-intensive, the added value is also quite high, but it’s not so capital-intensive, so it doesn’t require a lot of capital. Process R&D and wafer manufacturing are capital-intensive, technology-intensive, and have high added value. The technology and capital required for packaging & testing are not as intensive as that for wafer manufacturing. Compared to IC design, packaging & testing is more capital-intensive but not as technology-intensive. In short, every semiconductor company did its own thing.

The division of labor can be said to have begun in the 1960s and the first to have been separated out was packaging & testing. Companies often still did it themselves, but in low-wage areas, such as Taiwan, the Philippines, Singapore, Hong Kong (Hong Kong was where they started), and even Japan. In the 60s, you know that Japan's wages were only 5% of that in the United States. At that time, I suggested that TI come to Taiwan, and the CEO of TI said, "Let's go to Japan, because the salary in Japan is only 5%. In Taiwan it’s only 1%, but the difference between 1% and 5% is not big.” However, I told him at that time that Japan's wages would rise quickly, while Taiwan's wages would not rise so fast, so he came to Taiwan. This is just a small anecdote.

In short, packaging & testing in the 60s was at first not technically separated out, but done by individual companies in low-wage regions. However, in low-wage areas, you couldn’t lock up the market and have it all to yourself. Low-wage areas also had entrepreneurs. And regardless of whether you were TI or Motorola, they saw that you engaged in packaging & testing here. They knew that this technology was not that difficult, so they would open companies that had lower overhead than you and would say, "hey, you should let us do it for you". That’s why there are a lot of packaging facilities in Korea and so on.

It was like that in the semiconductor industry till 1985. I was in New York at General Instrument then. Gordon Campbell was a pretty famous entrepreneur who had founded a semiconductor company that was quite successful. In 1984, he had just sold it and wanted to build a new company. I didn't really know Gordon Campbell, but I knew his name, and he knew my name. He said, "I'm hoping that you and General Instrument can invest [in my new company]. Can you come and take a look?”

So we made an appointment, and he came to see me and said he needed $50 million. I said, "Do you have a business plan?" He said, "The business plan is all in my head.” Then I said, "Even if I want to invest in your company, I have to report this to General Instrument's board of directors. There must be a business plan.” He said, “No problem, no problem Morris. I'll send it to you in two weeks.”

He went back —— he was in California while I was in New York —— but 3 weeks passed and nothing happened. I was actually quite interested, so I called him. He said, "I'm sorry Morris, I didn't contact you again because I don't need 50 million anymore. I just need 5 million, 5 million is enough, and I can get that together myself. ” When I asked why, he said, “I’m not going to do wafer manufacturing —— that is capital intensive —— I will just build a design company.”

This was the first time I had heard of a company specializing only in design. Of course, the complementary part of that is wafer manufacturing: since there are companies specializing in design, there can also be companies specializing in wafer manufacturing. It took me a year to figure out this complementary model, which became TSMC. Anyway, I originally thought this speech would be too short, but it seems too long now.

Why is this business model so disruptive? Because process R&D and wafer manufacturing are in fact the heart of the so-called IDM (integrated device manufacturer). Packaging & testing can be separated out, but process R&D and wafer manufacturing are at least part of the heart, the other part being IC design.

TSMC's business model is that semiconductor companies are our customers, our friends. This is the biggest discovery of this business model. The biggest discovery of a business model is who your customer is and how you make money. Since our customers are semiconductor companies, if they originally make their own wafer but now we make wafer too, then our competitors are those in charge of wafer manufacturing inside semiconductor companies. That's why it's very disruptive. You young listeners haven't experienced this kind of corporate politics —— this is very disruptive.
Taiwan’s Advantages in Wafer Manufacturing

First of all, we have talent, a large number of excellent and dedicated engineers, technicians, operators willing to commit to manufacturing. This is very important. At least in the United States, engineers are not as dedicated as those in Taiwan. I think people in other professions as well, haha. Americans are not as dedicated as Taiwanese.

So what I want now are excellent and dedicated engineers, technicians, and operators, all of whom are important and need to be willing to commit to the manufacturing industry. Manufacturing in America is no longer a “hot” industry. It has not been “hot” for decades. People don’t want to work in the manufacturing industry. There are a lot of nerds doing R&D; there are a lot of people in the financial sector —— engineers etc. can also be in the financial sector and do venture capital and private equity. There are also many people doing marketing. All of the above (i.e. R&D, finance, marketing) are more desirable fields to be in than manufacturing. The commitment to manufacturing is a great advantage of Taiwan.

Secondly, our managers are Taiwanese. In Taiwan they’re the best, but they may not be the best when working overseas. So is the reverse —— my own experience demonstrates this. I worked for two or three decades in the United States to reach the level just below the CEO of a large company, but coming back here to Taiwan, even managing teams of a much smaller scale messes up my brain. Culture, habits, and language are all different. Although I had been speaking Chinese till I was 18, 36 years of not using it made it a problem for me to speak it again at the age of 54. I’m afraid it’s probably still a problem today, haha.

Another advantage Taiwan has is its convenient high-speed rail and highway transportation system, which makes mass manufacturing personnel movement easy. TSMC's three manufacturing centers —— Hsinchu, Tainan, and Taichung —— often have thousands of engineers whose location assignment changes but who do not have to move their family. They can be transferred from Tainan to Taichung, or Hsinchu to Taichung. The time from Tainan to Hsinchu is a little longer, so that’s not a one-day commute anymore, but the commute between Taichung and Tainan, and Hsinchu and Taichung, are within a day. Even when transportation is convenient, TSMC also has dormitories so that engineers can have a place to stay during the week and go home on weekends. They don’t have to move their whole family when their new assignment is often only a year. How do you do that in Arizona?
Fab-Centered Semiconductor Industry Chain

Okay next slide. TSMC is definitely not the only company in the industry. There are design companies like MediaTek —— perhaps the largest among all but there are many more. Midstream in the industry chain are Taiwanese equipment manufacturers: silicon wafers, gas suppliers, raw materials and so on. There are also important global semiconductor equipment vendors, such as ASML, Applied Materials, LAM Research, etc. all of which have service bases, training centers, and R&D laboratories in Taiwan. They are brought here by TSMC. Of course, I’m talking about TSMC today, but there are other wafer manufacturing companies in Taiwan besides it. Downstream are assembly and testing companies, so there is a fairly complete industry supply chain in Taiwan.
Origin of Professional Wafer Manufacturing

How did the professional wafer manufacturing model come about? It was a coincidence of events, places, and people in 1985 (风云际会). The “event” was the VLSI program of ITRI (Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute), which had been in operation for ten years at that point, and frankly speaking, it was at the end of its rope. It needed a lot of funding every year, but whenever it tried to do some small business, people would say that it was competing against the people of Taiwan for profit.

At the beginning, its technology was only one generation behind the world's most advanced technology. ITRI took RCA’s technology in 1975, but RCA itself was not first-class at that time, so the technology ITRI brought back was already behind. After ten years of working on it, the gap became even bigger. They were then two or three generations behind. It also cost quite a lot to employ hundreds of people. If it did some small business, it was accused of competing against the Taiwanese people for profit.

So Mr. Li Kwoh-ting wanted to find a way out, and I took advantage of that opportunity. This was definitely not hitchhiking. The foundry model was the world's first. Although the upside was that there were no competitors, the downside was that there were no customers either. I’m not going to talk about this today.
TSMC’s Success

Why did TSMC succeed? What are the factors behind it? The most important factors are what I’ve just talked about: Taiwan’s advantages in wafer manufacturing.

Of course professional managerial leadership is important too. I think TSMC is the largest company in Taiwan and led by professional managers, everyone from the chairman down. Of course, there are disadvantages as well, but I do think that to set up a world-class enterprise, deploying a professional managerial leadership is still a better model.

We have been investing in R&D for a long time as well. This is what we’ve done and important for our success.

We’ve also had 120,000 employees since our founding, including those who have left. This actually indicates a very low turnover rate, only about 3%, 4%. We currently have 50,000 employees and have only had 120,000 employees in total for the past 30 years.

Of course, the support from the government and society at large is very important to TSMC’s success as well. This is what I’m calling for today. I hope they will continue to support TSMC and increase the advantages of Taiwan.
Status of TSMC Today

TSMC’s status today is the leader in semiconductor manufacturing technology.

The semiconductor market was $476 billion last year, of which memory chip was $117 billion and logic chip was $359 billion. About a quarter of that, actually just a quarter, was made by TSMC.

Almost everyone in the developed world, about 2.5 billion people, uses semiconductor products made by TSMC in their daily life or work.

For example, I actually wear a hearing aid, and I recently discovered that the integrated circuits inside the hearing aid are also made by TSMC.

Every 3 years, the hearing aid salesman comes over and tells me about the new model and asks me to buy another set. I always asked him what the benefits of the new model were, and he said a bunch of things, and then he told me that the ICs were replaced so they would function better. I actually listened to him and bought 3 or 4 of them.

Although the integrated circuit has improved over the generations, it doesn't seem to help the function of the hearing aids much, to be honest. It's kind of like the American cars, with new models every year.
The US Subsidizing Semiconductor Manufacturing

Now let’s look at the countries we are competing against. The United States is the most powerful, with its subsidies.

Comparing the American wafer manufacturing conditions with Taiwan, land is America’s absolute advantage. So are water and electricity. However, Taiwan’s advantages that I just talked about are America’s weaknesses.

American talents are not as good as Taiwanese ones, whether it’s engineers, technicians, foremen, or operators. The personnel dispatched by Taiwan to the US, like I said, are not necessarily the best in terms of management ability. The US also lacks the ability to mobilize manufacturing personnel on a large scale.

The result is that the unit cost is significantly higher in the US than in Taiwan. It’s true that it has subsidies. The US has both the carrot and the stick, with the former being federal and state government financial subsidies. However, short-term subsidies can not make up for its long-term competitive disadvantages.

The subsidies only last for a few years, but you still have to keep going after those years.
Competition from Mainland China: After 20 Years and Tens of Billions in Subsidies

Next, competition from mainland China. After 20 years and tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, semiconductor manufacturing in China is more than 5 years behind TSMC. Logic semiconductor design is 1-2 years behind the United States and Taiwan.

Mainland is not yet a rival, especially in terms of wafer manufacturing.
Competition from South Korea: In Wafer Manufacturing, Samsung Electronics is a Strong Competitor

As for South Korea's competition in the field of wafer manufacturing, Samsung Electronics is a strong competitor of TSMC.

Why? Because the advantages of South Korea in wafer manufacturing and Taiwan are similar, from talent to the ease of transporting personnel, since Samsung’s factories are all in one place.

Its managers are also Korean, first-class in South Korea but not necessarily abroad.
Taiwan’s Next “Protective Mountain of the Nation”

Some people are now saying that we have a "protective mountain of the nation". If the definition of that is an industry that is important to the world and Taiwan has a high market share, then you need to find an industry where Taiwan has potential advantages and it’s important to the world.

Otherwise, Taiwan only has 24 million people and is a small place. I found wafer fabrication as a protective mountain of the nation, but I have not found a second one, and I have been searching for decades.

Then the next "protective mountain of the nation" needs to have an innovative product or business model, like wafer manufacturing/foundry, which was a new business model.

Then you also need many years of effort and business operations.To answer this question, my answer is: difficult!
Conclusion

Semiconductor wafer manufacturing is an important industry that impacts people's livelihood, economy, and national defense. It is also the first industry in which Taiwan has gained considerable advantages in world competitiveness. These advantages are not easy to obtain or keep. I hope that the government, society, and TSMC itself will make efforts to protect them.

This is my appeal to you today. Thank you.

https://interconnected.blog/morris-changs-last-speech/



source: 
christopher miller (author name), chip war (book title), 2022









 


christopher miller (author name), chip war (book title), 2022

christopher miller (author name), chip war (book title), 2022
target: general reader
 
incomplete read, good book, worth reading, too much other stuff outside of chip war topic, like ... ... ..., ... 
a tighter editing might work?
positive:  I learn new things
negative:  ... ... ...
 
hardcover 
notes index
manufactured in the united states of america  
 431 pages
 
cast of characters (good, important)
glossary (at the beginning, good, important) 
black and white pictures and photos
black and white glossy map (good, important)
 
 notes
 
morris chang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Chang
 
1976
no "fabless" companies 
designed chips but lacked their own labs,
Lynn Conway 
 
Carver Mead
 
chip design
separate chip design from manufacturing
 
Carver Mead
prophesy
Gutenberg moment in chipmaking
 
John Carruthers
Lithography
Intel
Andy Grove
 
Jay Lathrop
 
Nikon, Cannon, ASML 
 
p.187 to p.189
1996, Intel
u.s. department of energy
expertise in optics and other fields
make EUV work
Intel paid for most "95 per cent gorilla"
researchers
Lawrence livermore 
Sandia national labs
to build a prototype EUV system
their focus was on science, not on mass production.
no American firm could do it.
it still wasn't clear that EUV would work.
ASML's core R&D would take place in Netherlands.
commerce department, the national labs, ..
long delays and huge cost overruns, 
DARPA and defense department, which had funded the lithography industry for decades, 
EUV lithography tools 
([ the technical and production development of the following URL is in development ])
 
p.144
Soviet union
"copy it" strategy
faced a continued technology lag.
1985, CIA study of soviet microprocessors
were always half a decade (5 years) behind.
([ 5 years behind on an 8 hours per day, and 5 days per week; or 5 years behind on a 24 hours per day, 7 day per week; ...]) 
([ mythical man-month ])
 
p.412








 

 

low frequency sound (infrasound)

 

Infrasound, sometimes referred to as low frequency sound, describes sound waves with a frequency below the lower limit of human audibility (generally 20 Hz, as defined by the ANSI/ASA S1.1-2013 standard).[1] Hearing becomes gradually less sensitive as frequency decreases, so for humans to perceive infrasound, the sound pressure must be sufficiently high. The ear is the primary organ for sensing low sound, but at higher intensities it is possible to feel infrasound vibrations in various parts of the body.

The study of such sound waves is sometimes referred to as infrasonics, covering sounds beneath 20 Hz down to 0.1 Hz (and rarely to 0.001 Hz). People use this frequency range for monitoring earthquakes and volcanoes, charting rock and petroleum formations below the earth, and also in ballistocardiography and seismocardiography to study the mechanics of the heart.

Infrasound is characterized by an ability to get around obstacles with little dissipation. In music, acoustic waveguide methods, such as a large pipe organ or, for reproduction, exotic loudspeaker designs such as transmission line, rotary woofer, or traditional subwoofer designs can produce low-frequency sounds, including near-infrasound. Subwoofers designed to produce infrasound are capable of sound reproduction an octave or more below that of most commercially available subwoofers, and are often about 10 times the size.[citation needed]

History and study

The Allies of World War II first used infrasound to locate artillery.[2] One of the pioneers in infrasonic research was French scientist Vladimir Gavreau.[3] His interest in infrasonic waves first came about in 1957 in the large concrete building that he and his research team were working in. The group was experiencing bouts of periodic and deeply unpleasant nausea. After weeks of speculation on the source of the nausea — the team was convinced that it was a pathogen or an untraced leak of noxious chemical fumes in the facility — they discovered that a “loosely poised low speed motor… was developing [these] ‘nauseating vibrations’”.[3]

When Gavreau and the team attempted to measure an amplitude and pitch, they were shocked when their equipment detected no audible sound. They concluded the sound being generated by the motor was so low in pitch that it was below their biological ability to hear, and that their recording equipment was not capable of detecting these frequencies. Nobody had conceived that sound might exist at such low frequencies, and so no equipment had been developed to detect it. Eventually, it was determined that the sound inducing the nausea was a 7 cycle per second infrasound wave that was inducing a resonant mode in the ductwork and architecture of the building, significantly amplifying the sound.[3] In the wake of this serendipitous discovery, the researchers soon got to work preparing further infrasonic tests in the laboratories. One of his experiments was an infrasonic whistle, an oversized organ pipe.[4][5][6] As a result of this and similar incidents, it has become routine in new architecture construction to inspect for and eliminate any infrasonic resonances in cavities and the introduction of sound-proofing and materials with specialized sonic properties.

Sources

Patent for a double bass reflex loudspeaker enclosure design intended to produce infrasonic frequencies ranging from 5 to 25 hertz, of which traditional subwoofer designs are not readily capable.

Infrasound can result from both natural and man-made sources:

  • Human singers: some vocalists, including Tim Storms, can produce notes in the infrasound range.[30]

Animal reaction

Some animals have been thought to perceive the infrasonic waves going through the earth, caused by natural disasters, and to use these as an early warning. An example of this is the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Animals were reported to have fled the area hours before the actual tsunami hit the shores of Asia.[34][35] It is not known for sure that this is the cause; some have suggested that it may have been the influence of electromagnetic waves, and not of infrasonic waves, that prompted these animals to flee.[36]

Research in 2013 by Jon Hagstrum of the US Geological Survey suggests that homing pigeons use low-frequency infrasound to navigate.[37]

Human reactions

20 Hz is considered the normal low-frequency limit of human hearing.[citation needed] When pure sine waves are reproduced under ideal conditions and at very high volume, a human listener will be able to identify tones as low as 12 Hz.[38] Below 10 Hz it is possible to perceive the single cycles of the sound, along with a sensation of pressure at the eardrums.

From about 1000 Hz, the dynamic range of the auditory system decreases with decreasing frequency. This compression is observable in the equal-loudness-level contours, and it implies that even a slight increase in level can change the perceived loudness from barely audible to loud. Combined with the natural spread in thresholds within a population, its effect may be that a very low-frequency sound which is inaudible to some people may be loud to others.

One study has suggested that infrasound may cause feelings of awe or fear in humans. It has also been suggested that since it is not consciously perceived, it may make people feel vaguely that odd or supernatural events are taking place.[39]

A scientist working at Sydney University's Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory reports growing evidence that infrasound may affect some people's nervous system by stimulating the vestibular system, and this has shown in animal models an effect similar to sea sickness.[40]

In research conducted in 2006 focusing on the impact of sound emissions from wind turbines on the nearby population, perceived infrasound has been associated to effects such as annoyance or fatigue, depending on its intensity, with little evidence supporting physiological effects of infrasound below the human perception threshold.[41] Later studies, however, have linked inaudible infrasound to effects such as fullness, pressure or tinnitus, and acknowledged the possibility that it could disturb sleep.[42] Other studies have also suggested associations between noise levels in turbines and self-reported sleep disturbances in the nearby population, while adding that the contribution of infrasound to this effect is still not fully understood.[43][44]

In a study at Ibaraki University in Japan, researchers said EEG tests showed that the infrasound produced by wind turbines was "considered to be an annoyance to the technicians who work close to a modern large-scale wind turbine".[45][46][47]

Jürgen Altmann of the Dortmund University of Technology, an expert on sonic weapons, has said that there is no reliable evidence for nausea and vomiting caused by infrasound.[48]

High volume levels at concerts from subwoofer arrays have been cited as causing lung collapse in individuals who are very close to the subwoofers, especially for smokers who are particularly tall and thin.[49]

In September 2009, London student Tom Reid died of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome (SADS) after complaining that "loud bass notes" were "getting to his heart". The inquest recorded a verdict of natural causes, although some experts commented that the bass could have acted as a trigger.[50]

Air is a very inefficient medium for transferring low frequency vibration from a transducer to the human body.[51] Mechanical connection of the vibration source to the human body, however, provides a potentially dangerous combination. The U.S. space program, worried about the harmful effects of rocket flight on astronauts, ordered vibration tests that used cockpit seats mounted on vibration tables to transfer "brown note" and other frequencies directly to the human subjects. Very high power levels of 160 dB were achieved at frequencies of 2–3 Hz. Test frequencies ranged from 0.5 Hz to 40 Hz. Test subjects suffered motor ataxia, nausea, visual disturbance, degraded task performance and difficulties in communication. These tests are assumed by researchers to be the nucleus of the current urban myth.[52][53][clarification needed]

The report "A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects"[54] contains a long list of research about exposure to high-level infrasound among humans and animals. For instance, in 1972, Borredon exposed 42 young men to tones at 7.5 Hz at 130 dB for 50 minutes. This exposure caused no adverse effects other than reported drowsiness and a slight blood pressure increase. In 1975, Slarve and Johnson exposed four male subjects to infrasound at frequencies from 1 to 20 Hz, for eight minutes at a time, at levels up to 144 dB SPL. There was no evidence of any detrimental effect other than middle ear discomfort. Tests of high-intensity infrasound on animals resulted in measurable changes, such as cell changes and ruptured blood vessel walls.

In February 2005, the television show MythBusters used twelve Meyer Sound 700-HP subwoofers—a model and quantity that has been employed for major rock concerts.[55][56] Normal operating frequency range of the selected subwoofer model was 28 Hz to 150 Hz[57] but the 12 enclosures at MythBusters had been specially modified for deeper bass extension.[58] Roger Schwenke and John Meyer directed the Meyer Sound team in devising a special test rig that would produce very high sound levels at infrasonic frequencies. The subwoofers' tuning ports were blocked and their input cards were altered. The modified cabinets were positioned in an open ring configuration: four stacks of three subwoofers each. Test signals were generated by a SIM 3 audio analyzer, with its software modified to produce infrasonic tones. A Brüel & Kjær sound level analyzer, fed with an attenuated signal from a model 4189 measurement microphone, displayed and recorded sound pressure levels.[58] The hosts on the show tried a series of frequencies as low as 5 Hz, attaining a level of 120 decibels of sound pressure at 9 Hz and up to 153 dB at frequencies above 20 Hz, but the rumored physiological effects did not materialize.[58] The test subjects all reported some physical anxiety and shortness of breath, even a small amount of nausea, but this was dismissed by the hosts, noting that sound at that frequency and intensity moves air rapidly in and out of one's lungs. The show declared the brown note myth "busted."

Infrasound is one hypothesized cause of death for the nine Russian hikers who were found dead at Dyatlov Pass (near Siberia) in 1959.[59]

Infrasonic 17 Hz tone experiment

On 31 May 2003, a group of UK researchers held a mass experiment, where they exposed some 700 people to music laced with soft 17 Hz sine waves played at a level described as "near the edge of hearing", produced by an extra-long-stroke subwoofer mounted two-thirds of the way from the end of a seven-meter-long plastic sewer pipe. The experimental concert (entitled Infrasonic) took place in the Purcell Room over the course of two performances, each consisting of four musical pieces. Two of the pieces in each concert had 17 Hz tones played underneath.[60][61]

In the second concert, the pieces that were to carry a 17 Hz undertone were swapped so that test results would not focus on any specific musical piece. The participants were not told which pieces included the low-level 17 Hz near-infrasonic tone. The presence of the tone resulted in a significant number (22%) of respondents reporting feeling uneasy or sorrowful, getting chills down the spine or nervous feelings of revulsion or fear.[60][61]

In presenting the evidence to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Professor Richard Wiseman said "These results suggest that low frequency sound can cause people to have unusual experiences even though they cannot consciously detect infrasound. Some scientists have suggested that this level of sound may be present at some allegedly haunted sites and so cause people to have odd sensations that they attribute to a ghost—our findings support these ideas."[39]

Suggested relationship to ghost sightings

Psychologist Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire suggests that the odd sensations that people attribute to ghosts may be caused by infrasonic vibrations. Vic Tandy, experimental officer and part-time lecturer in the school of international studies and law at Coventry University, along with Dr. Tony Lawrence of the University's psychology department, wrote in 1998 a paper called "Ghosts in the Machine" for the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Their research suggested that an infrasonic signal of 19 Hz might be responsible for some ghost sightings. Tandy was working late one night alone in a supposedly haunted laboratory at Warwick, when he felt very anxious and could detect a grey blob out of the corner of his eye. When Tandy turned to face the grey blob, there was nothing.

The following day, Tandy was working on his fencing foil, with the handle held in a vice. Although there was nothing touching it, the blade started to vibrate wildly. Further investigation led Tandy to discover that the extractor fan in the lab was emitting a frequency of 18.98 Hz, very close to the resonant frequency of the eye given as 18 Hz by NASA.[62] This, Tandy conjectured, was why he had seen a ghostly figure—it was, he believed, an optical illusion caused by his eyeballs resonating. The room was exactly half a wavelength in length, and the desk was in the centre, thus causing a standing wave which caused the vibration of the foil.[63]

Tandy investigated this phenomenon further and wrote a paper entitled The Ghost in the Machine.[64] He carried out a number of investigations at various sites believed to be haunted, including the basement of the Tourist Information Bureau next to Coventry Cathedral[65][66] and Edinburgh Castle.[67][68]

Infrasound for nuclear detonation detection

Infrasound is one of several techniques used to identify if a nuclear detonation has occurred. A network of 60 infrasound stations, in addition to seismic and hydroacoustic stations, comprise the International Monitoring System (IMS) that is tasked with monitoring compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).[69] IMS Infrasound stations consist of eight microbarometer sensors and space filters arranged in an array covering an area of approximately 1 to 9 km2.[69][70] The space filters used are radiating pipes with inlet ports along their length, designed to average out pressure variations like wind turbulence for more precise measurements.[70] The microbarometers used are designed to monitor frequencies below approximately 20 hertz.[69] Sound waves below 20 hertz have longer wavelengths and are not easily absorbed, allowing for detection across large distances.[69]

Infrasound wavelengths can be generated artificially through detonations and other human activity, or naturally from earthquakes, severe weather, lightning, and other sources.[69] Like forensic seismology, algorithms and other filter techniques are required to analyze gathered data and characterize events to determine if a nuclear detonation has actually occurred. Data is transmitted from each station via secure communication links for further analysis. A digital signature is also embedded in the data sent from each station to verify if the data is authentic.[71]

Detection and measurement

NASA Langley has designed and developed an infrasonic detection system that can be used to make useful infrasound measurements at a location where it was not possible previously. The system comprises an electret condenser microphone PCB Model 377M06, having a 3-inch membrane diameter, and a small, compact windscreen.[72] Electret-based technology offers the lowest possible background noise, because Johnson noise generated in the supporting electronics (preamplifier) is minimized.[72]

The microphone features a high membrane compliance with a large backchamber volume, a prepolarized backplane and a high impedance preamplifier located inside the backchamber. The windscreen, based on the high transmission coefficient of infrasound through matter, is made of a material having a low acoustic impedance and has a sufficiently thick wall to ensure structural stability.[73] Close-cell polyurethane foam has been found to serve the purpose well. In the proposed test, test parameters will be sensitivity, background noise, signal fidelity (harmonic distortion), and temporal stability.

The microphone design differs from that of a conventional audio system in that the peculiar features of infrasound are taken into account. First, infrasound propagates over vast distances through the Earth's atmosphere as a result of very low atmospheric absorption and of refractive ducting that enables propagation by way of multiple bounces between the Earth's surface and the stratosphere. A second property that has received little attention is the great penetration capability of infrasound through solid matter – a property utilized in the design and fabrication of the system windscreens.[73]

Thus the system fulfills several instrumentation requirements advantageous to the application of acoustics: (1) a low-frequency microphone with especially low background noise, which enables detection of low-level signals within a low-frequency passband; (2) a small, compact windscreen that permits (3) rapid deployment of a microphone array in the field. The system also features a data acquisition system that permits real time detection, bearing, and signature of a low-frequency source.[73]

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission uses infrasound as one of its monitoring technologies, along with seismic, hydroacoustic, and atmospheric radionuclide monitoring. The loudest infrasound recorded to date by the monitoring system was generated by the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor.[74]

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

antony sutton, usa helping soviet union

 antony sutton, usa helping soviet union
 
https://alor.org/Storage/Library/PDF/Sutton_AC_national_suicide.pdf

Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
Profile photo for ChatGPT
ChatGPT

Antony Sutton's ideas on this topic are controversial and not universally accepted. However, it is true that some American companies did contribute to the development of industrial infrastructure in both China and the Soviet Union during the early 20th century. For example, Ford Motor Company established a manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and General Electric provided technical assistance to the Chinese government in the 1930s. These companies may have seen these activities as opportunities for profit, or as ways to expand their markets. Additionally, during World War II, American companies did supply materials and equipment to the Soviet Union as part of the Lend-Lease program, which was intended to support Allied forces. It is important to note that the actions of these companies were not necessarily malicious or unpatriotic, but rather a reflection of the complexities of global commerce and politics.


Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?

Antony Sutton's ideas on this topic are controversial and not universally accepted. However, it is true that some American companies did contribute to the development of industrial infrastructure in both China and the Soviet Union during the early 20th century. For example, Ford Motor Company established a manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and General Electric provided technical assistance to the Chinese government in the 1930s. These companies may have seen these activities as opportunities for profit, or as ways to expand their markets. Additionally, during World War II, American companies did supply materials and equipment to the Soviet Union as part of the Lend-Lease program, which was intended to support Allied forces. It is important to note that the actions of these companies were not necessarily malicious or unpatriotic, but rather a reflection of the complexities of global commerce and politics.

Tell me more
Certainly! Let's delve deeper into the topic.

During the early 20th century, there were indeed American companies that engaged in business activities with both China and the Soviet Union, which were later considered adversaries of the United States during the Cold War. Antony Sutton, an economist and writer, argued that these interactions played a significant role in the development of the industrial infrastructure of these countries. He believed that Western technology and investment assisted the rise of communism in both China and the Soviet Union.

One notable example is the Ford Motor Company's involvement in the Soviet Union. In 1929, Henry Ford signed an agreement with the Soviet government to establish an automobile manufacturing plant, known as Ford Gorky Automobile Plant (GAZ), near Nizhny Novgorod (formerly Gorky). The plant aimed to produce automobiles, trucks, and tractors for the Soviet Union. Ford provided technical assistance, machinery, and managerial expertise. This venture lasted until the late 1930s when political tensions and ideological differences led to its dissolution.

Similarly, American companies such as General Electric (GE) had interactions with China. In the 1930s, GE collaborated with the Chinese government to provide technical assistance and expertise in developing their industrial infrastructure. This involvement included the establishment of power plants and the modernization of China's electrical system. However, it's important to note that these activities were not exclusive to GE but involved various Western companies and countries seeking business opportunities in China.

The motivation behind these interactions was primarily driven by economic interests. American companies saw potential markets and business opportunities in these countries. At the time, China was undergoing a period of political instability, and the Soviet Union was in the process of industrialization. Some American businesses viewed these endeavors as ways to expand their market reach and increase profits. It's worth noting that these interactions occurred before the rise of communism in China and the Soviet Union, and the intentions of the companies involved were primarily commercial in nature.

During World War II, the United States implemented the Lend-Lease program to support its allies, including the Soviet Union. Through this program, the U.S. provided military equipment, supplies, and materials to the Soviet Union to aid in their fight against Nazi Germany. American companies, including Ford, General Motors (GM), and others, played a role in producing war materials that were supplied to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. These collaborations were driven by the common goal of defeating a shared enemy rather than a deliberate attempt to aid future adversaries.

While there is evidence of American companies engaging in business activities with China and the Soviet Union, it is important to approach Sutton's claims with caution. His interpretations of these interactions often emphasized conspiratorial elements and suggested intentional support for communist regimes. The motivations and consequences of these interactions were multifaceted, influenced by factors such as economic interests, geopolitical circumstances, and evolving international relations. The complexities of historical events and the actions of individual companies defy simple categorizations.



https://www.quora.com/Is-Antony-Sutton-correct-about-the-USA-helping-communist-China-as-well-as-the-Soviet-Union-first-develop-its-industrial-infrastructure-How-companies-like-Ford-GE-GM-etc-helped-develop-the-war-industry-of-the-USAs

Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Senior Controller at NATOAuthor has 11.5K answers and 128M answer views1y
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?

The US was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s.

US industry was the most advanced and Stalin wanted the best, so he hired Amercians and bought American industrial equipment.

At this point, the US did not consider the Soviet Union a threat and the Soviets paid handsomely, often in gold.

China got most of its industrial know-how from the Soviets in the 1950s until the Sino-Soviet split.

The US did start providing technological help in the 1970s after Nixon went to China.


https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-US-gov-allow-Ford-and-General-Electric-to-help-build-the-Soviet-Unions-the-People-Republic-of-Chinas-infrastructure-in-order-to-make-military-equipment-Did-they-allow-the-same-for-NAZI-Japanese-military

Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Senior Controller at NATOAuthor has 11.5K answers and 128M answer views1y
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?

The US was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s.

US industry was the most advanced and Stalin wanted the best, so he hired Amercians and bought American industrial equipment.

At this point, the US did not consider the Soviet Union a threat and the Soviets paid handsomely, often in gold.

China got most of its industrial know-how from the Soviets in the 1950s until the Sino-Soviet split.

The US did start providing technological help in the 1970s after Nixon went to China.


https://www.quora.com/profile/Dima-Vorobiev
https://www.quora.com/Is-Antony-Sutton-correct-about-the-USA-helping-communist-China-as-well-as-the-Soviet-Union-first-develop-its-industrial-infrastructure-How-companies-like-Ford-GE-GM-etc-helped-develop-the-war-industry-of-the-USAs

Dima Vorobiev
Former Soviet propaganda executiveUpvoted by
Philip W
, Major History Buff and
Roger Atkins
, Masters Professional Ed History & Politics, Deakin University (2008)Author has 4.3K answers and 158.3M answer views3y
Related
Why did China and the Soviet Union split in the 1960′s?

As a matter of fact, the USSR and China split as early as in the 1950s.

Simply put, the underlying logic of Mao breaking up with the USSR was the same as of Putin breaking up with the West some 15 years ago. It’s the logic of internal power game.

A good enemy is gold

Despite the appearance of solid control projected by the both rulers, several threats to them were smouldering under the surface. Many people who were instrumental in getting the two men to the top of power, had their own ideas of how things should be done—and were probably thinking of taking over the job.

When it comes to an enemy at the gates, nothing can beat it when you need to get rid of internal competition. In Russian, we say “Don't change horses in mid-stream” (Konéy na perepráve ne menyáyut).

Chairman Mao, like President Putin, grabbed the occasion. Amazingly, both did it in about the same time frame.

From 1949, it took seven years for Mao to experience the full horror of Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization resulting in the Hungarian uprising and Polish unrest of 1956. Likewise, it took Putin seven years of his presidency to get scared enough of the Western ideas of accountable government and rotation of power. This compelled him to directly challenge the West in his Munich speech (Munich speech of Vladimir Putin

). From there, it all only went south.

Also in the terms of propaganda, for both Mao and Putin it made perfect sense to break out of their junior roles. Both staked a claim as global iconoclasts.

PRC

In the 1950s, Khrushchev put on hold the international expansion of the Communist project. The flow of funds to our agents of influence abroad dwindled. The break with Israel and the anti-Stalinist revelations in 1956 shattered the support that the Soviet project used to enjoy among the liberals and leftists in the West.

Mao decided to fill the void of global revolutionary action. And as always with communists, “There can be only one!



On the home front, the string of Mao’s economic failures also required someone to be thrown under the bus. In the absence of the bourgeois class, the role of an internal enemy was assigned to the Communist elite—the same elite that in the USSR performed de-Stalinization. Later, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao simply did what he thought Stalin should have done before his death: prevent a bourgeois transformation of the Communist bureaucracy by another Great Purge. (Deng’s rollback of the Marxist project that started in the 1970s showed Mao was right.)

Putin

President Putin was tasked by Yeltsin’s family and our oligarchs with two tasks:

    guarantee the immunity of state-oligarchical fortunes
    make our elite an equal partner at the global table of power (“Project Londongrad”).

He half-delivered on the first one. He perpetuated predatory economic liberalism for the selected few, as well as added himself and his pals to the national roster of oligarchs. Sadly, he failed to deliver on the second one. He seemed to sense a serious threat to him as a deal-breaker.

Luckily for him, President Putin managed to accumulate enough power to confiscate oligarchical wealth and appoint his own oligarchs. He refused to be thrown under the bus himself. Instead, he appointed the US and their European allies to be the deal-breakers. He pointed at them as the sneaky enemies who seek to hamstring the new, resurgent Russia. It’s because of these perfidious, double-faced, back-stabbing “partners” in the West he didn’t deliver.

In the photo below, a T-62 tank captured by China from the Soviet Army in 1969 during the border fights in the Far East. It has been displayed in Beijing as an evidence of the aggressive nature of Soviet revisionism threatening Communist China. (President Putin has so far failed to produce a comparable artefact proving the Western threat. Which is why Ukraine being an evil American puppet is such a big deal for our loyalist media.)