China CCP to Nationalize Alibaba operator of Sesame Credit

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,112
168
68
Country
United Kingdom

Reports from China indicate that the Chinese government may be working on a plan to nationalize Jack Ma's Alibaba and the Ant Group. China's ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has gone further ahead with the antitrust investigation into e-commerce giant Alibaba.
Xi Jinping, Chinese President and CCP general secretary, had said in October that the plan was to make China a more state-controlled economy based on domestic demand.
I will say while some here may not see this as a big development it is really as Alibaba group owns Ali Express and operats basically China's equivalent of Amazon in terms of it's size along with the Sesame credit system which should be well known about in China

For those who don't know about it


so this is a pretty big move for China.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,553
851
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg





I will say while some here may not see this as a big development it is really as Alibaba group owns Ali Express and operats basically China's equivalent of Amazon in terms of it's size along with the Sesame credit system which should be well known about in China

For those who don't know about it


so this is a pretty big move for China.
I mean, they probably pretty much owned them anyway
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,112
168
68
Country
United Kingdom
I mean, they probably pretty much owned them anyway
Probably but this should be a fairly worrying move for people worried about the power of China that they're now just taking over control of the company fully not just likely sitting on the board of directors collecting money.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
I mean, they probably pretty much owned them anyway
Well, there's an interesting angle there. As far as I'm aware, Alibaba is one of the big companies in China that the CCP appears probably not to own to any significant degree.

Jack Ma has of course been quite vocally critical of some ways that China is run, and there is some suspicion that this is China showing Jack Ma who's boss. I think whilst the CCP may accept constructive comments in private, they resent public criticism from literally anyone on the planet. And that goes double for widely admired citizens of their own state whose criticism may be particularly damaging to their domestic reputation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
665
215
48
Well, there's an interesting angle there. As far as I'm aware, Alibaba is one of the big companies in China that the CCP appears probably not to own to any significant degree.

Jack Ma has of course been quite vocally critical of some ways that China is run, and there is some suspicion that this is China showing Jack Ma who's boss. I think whilst the CCP may accept constructive comments in private, they resent public criticism from literally anyone on the planet. And that goes double for widely admired citizens of their own state whose criticism may be particularly damaging to their domestic reputation.
Jack Ma has been reprimanded by the CCP for a quite a few times now for criticizing the state banks and dispersing vast amounts of credit through the popular Alipay that could become a risk for bank reserve guarantees. He stepped out of line one time too many. But Ma can probably settle an accord by trading his freedom with the vast amount of user data and credit info from Alipay. Information is the new gold now anyway.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
But Ma can probably settle an accord by trading his freedom with the vast amount of user data and credit info from Alipay. Information is the new gold now anyway.
Information is gold, but ownership is control.

The move to break up his Ant Group allows them to buy it via state banks or whatever else: then as owners they'll also have the liberty to take the information anyway.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
665
215
48
Information is gold, but ownership is control.

The move to break up his Ant Group allows them to buy it via state banks or whatever else: then as owners they'll also have the liberty to take the information anyway.
Could be, but I don't think that is necessarily Xi's intent. The regime wants to encourage entrepeneurship and establish rival enterprise. Espescially to increase domestic spending and investments. They are way too reliant on exports at this point.

Jack Ma was actually a great example of entrepeneurship in China. The CCP gave him an amount of lenience they would have given very few other individuals. It's not until Ma started criticizing state institutions that he fell from grace. The credit flow of Alipay could also actively undermine the solvency of state banks since the debt was still written off their balance. They could saddle people with too much debt they couldn't repay. The CCP warned Ma quite a few times about this but Ma threw those cautions in the wind. Something that is definitely not appreciated in a country like China.
 
Last edited:

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
299
225
48
Could be, but I don't think that is necessarily Xi's intent. The regime wants to encourage entrepeneurship and establish rival enterprise. Espescially to increase domestic spending and investments. They are way too reliant on exports at this point.
The CCP is in quite a comfortable position where they don't have to demonstrate any consistency on how businesses are treated, which allows them to leave loyal businesses alone while nationalising those that go against the party line. They can also exercise a lot of indirect control through things like unions; for example, Huawei is a worker's co-operative, but every worker has to be in the union, and the union is part of the national assembly of trade unions which is controlled by the government.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Apr 19, 2020
413
105
48
The CCP isn't a monolothic entity, it's been changing quite a lot over time, especially since Xi came to power. It used to be less authoritarian and was okay with leaving private company to do their things, this is why it became so prosperous with Deng. But Xi is definitely bringing it back to Mao time and so a large company like alibaba was on borrowed time no matter what they did, never mind that almost all state own company have incredibly lackluster trackrecord despite a lot of help from the government. Under CCP control its probably going to flounder, be eclipsed by a private rival, which will eventually be absorbed too.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,112
168
68
Country
United Kingdom
The CCP is in quite a comfortable position where they don't have to demonstrate any consistency on how businesses are treated, which allows them to leave loyal businesses alone while nationalising those that go against the party line. They can also exercise a lot of indirect control through things like unions; for example, Huawei is a worker's co-operative, but every worker has to be in the union, and the union is part of the national assembly of trade unions which is controlled by the government.
Weirdly similar to what the Nazis used to do.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
Weirdly similar to what the Nazis used to do.
Doesn't sound that similar to me. The Nazis encouraged private ownership, and then controlled them by a mixture of co-opting (with government projects) or implicitly threatening the owners. Didn't need to faff around with part-ownership, nationalisation and trade unions.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,112
168
68
Country
United Kingdom
Doesn't sound that similar to me. The Nazis encouraged private ownership, and then controlled them by a mixture of co-opting (with government projects) or implicitly threatening the owners. Didn't need to faff around with part-ownership, nationalisation and trade unions.
It actually is they were fine with private ownership only as long as they served them. If they deemed they weren't doing enough they'd take control especially during the tail end of the war.



You don't seem to understand many of the premises of Nazism.
is this going to be like when you claimed I didn't understand the Hunger Games, I called you out on it and then you never bothered responding to prove how I'd what was it you said " Your literary knowledge is apparently as lacking as your geopolitical "

Funny how you never came back to that one.

I predict you doing the same here too
 
Last edited:

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
It actually is they were fine with private ownership only as long as they served them. If they deemed they weren't doing enough they'd take control especially during the tail end of the war.
No, they weren't "fine" with private ownership, they favoured it. It wasn't just okay, or acceptable, or adequate, it was the way they wanted businesses run.

The owners were then to be tied to and compliant with the Nazi regime as required. If they were good servants of the state they would be handsomely rewarded (carrot), and if they were not, they would face... consequences (stick). Nationalisation was one of the more extreme, last resort consequences, because the Nazis did not want to run companies.

China and Nazi Germany are similar in that both are authoritarian regimes who have every intent of ensuring business ultimately serve the state in a quasi-capitalist economy. But many mechanics of how China does and Nazi Germany did it are quite different.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
111
76
33
You don't seem to understand many of the premises of Nazism.
Dunno, Xi has been a great Nazi thus far:
- State Capitalism
- Extreme Nationalism
- Desire to reclaim "what is historically theirs"
- Cultural & Ethnic cleansing going on
- Dictatorship
- Control of the media

Short of persecuting the handicapped & homosexuals I think he's politically right where you'd expect a Nazi to be. He's just a bit more subtle about it.

More on topic: does this mean we get to ban Alibaba and prevent all that cheap (and sometimes dangerous) crap from entering Europe?
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
665
215
48
Dunno, Xi has been a great Nazi thus far:
- State Capitalism
- Extreme Nationalism
- Desire to reclaim "what is historically theirs"
- Cultural & Ethnic cleansing going on
- Dictatorship
- Control of the media

Short of persecuting the handicapped & homosexuals I think he's politically right where you'd expect a Nazi to be. He's just a bit more subtle about it.
The difference is that the intent of the regime was never driven by hate driven ideology but rather by cold pragmatism. Xiaoping etc pretty much lifted China out of centuries long crushing poverty and they continued that line to the point that China is now the rival superpower. Millions of Chinese have lives their rural ancestors could only dream about. Ofcourse, by any democratic standard the CCP crossed the line quite a few times but it was always in the pursuit of stability, economic progress and the somewhat indistinct 'social harmony'.

No one disagrees democracy and rule of law are the most noble forms of government but what good is 'freedom' when you have nothing to eat? That is also what Xi's defense was when countries criticized China; that their well fed bellies simply did not understand what it was like to go hungry.

It's easy to condemn China from a European or American perspective; countries that haven't really known serious poverty or strife in over 75 years. But even here you can see the tide turning with democracy and rule of law getting one stress test after the other. Whether it be Trump and the deep social divisions in the U.S. or the destabilizing effects of uncontrolled immigration that causes riots in France or the populist sentiments behind Brexit. What do you think would happen if you also add mass poverty, chaos and famine into the mix?

We westerners are used to sitting on our high horse but you can wonder how much longer that position of luxury is still sustainable.

More on topic: does this mean we get to ban Alibaba and prevent all that cheap (and sometimes dangerous) crap from entering Europe?
Given the popularity of stores like Action and the demand for cheap plastic garbage my answer is a definite no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,553
851
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
The difference is that the intent of the regime was never driven by hate driven ideology but rather by cold pragmatism. Xiaoping etc pretty much lifted China out of centuries long crushing poverty and they continued that line to the point that China is now the rival superpower. Millions of Chinese have lives their rural ancestors could only dream about. Ofcourse, by any democratic standard the CCP crossed the line quite a few times but it was always in the pursuit of stability, economic progress and the somewhat indistinct 'social harmony'.

No one disagrees democracy and rule of law are the most noble forms of government but what good is 'freedom' when you have nothing to eat? That is also what Xi's defense was when countries criticized China; that their well fed bellies simply did not understand what it was like to go hungry.

It's easy to condemn China from a European or American perspective; countries that haven't really known serious poverty or strife in over 75 years. But even here you can see the tide turning with democracy and rule of law getting one stress test after the other. Whether it be Trump and the deep social divisions in the U.S. or the destabilizing effects of uncontrolled immigration that causes riots in France or the populist sentiments behind Brexit. What do you think would happen if you also add mass poverty, chaos and famine into the mix?

We westerners are used to sitting on our high horse but you can wonder how much longer that position of luxury is still sustainable.



Given the popularity of stores like Action and the demand for cheap plastic garbage my answer is a definite no.
If you Trump did an incredible job, most would be praising him, even if he still gassed a bunch of protestor for a photo shoot or put kids in cages
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
111
76
33
The difference is that the intent of the regime was never driven by hate driven ideology but rather by cold pragmatism. Xiaoping etc pretty much lifted China out of centuries long crushing poverty and they continued that line to the point that China is now the rival superpower. Millions of Chinese have lives their rural ancestors could only dream about. Ofcourse, by any democratic standard the CCP crossed the line quite a few times but it was always in the pursuit of stability, economic progress and the somewhat indistinct 'social harmony'.

No one disagrees democracy and rule of law are the most noble forms of government but what good is 'freedom' when you have nothing to eat? That is also what Xi's defense was when countries criticized China; that their well fed bellies simply did not understand what it was like to go hungry.

It's easy to condemn China from a European or American perspective; countries that haven't really known serious poverty or strife in over 75 years. But even here you can see the tide turning with democracy and rule of law getting one stress test after the other. Whether it be Trump and the deep social divisions in the U.S. or the destabilizing effects of uncontrolled immigration that causes riots in France or the populist sentiments behind Brexit. What do you think would happen if you also add mass poverty, chaos and famine into the mix?

We westerners are used to sitting on our high horse but you can wonder how much longer that position of luxury is still sustainable.
I can't speak for Den Xiaoping's policies as I do not know enough about him but Xi's policies far extend beyond pragmatism. Culturally and/or ethnically cleansing non-Han minorities isn't going to help poor Chinese citizens from rural areas in any way. Neither is the final annexation of Hong Kong and the continuous threats over Taiwan. This is purely driven by a Nationalistic agenda. Xi also strongly tightened the party's grip on the rule of law and the media, which again doesn't bring food on the table of the millions of still extremely poor Chinese citizens.

And yes it is easy to condemn them, especially from a European perspective. Because we have seen what Nationalistic bullshit can do with a desperate nation (Nazi Germany anyone?). Xi has emulated Fascist regimes almost the entire way, perhaps with a bit more pragmatism. But to be clear, what people dislike about Fascists isn't their lack of pragmatism...

Given the popularity of stores like Action and the demand for cheap plastic garbage my answer is a definite no.
That store should be banned as well tbh!