>

Golly, it is as if they’ve never seen over-centralized planning and control go wrong. These are awesome moves. For China’s business competitors. Really, anything they can do to head back down the Mao path will nicely overcome the relative sanity of Xi’s predecessors. Totalitarianism is beast mode at killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Are we supposed to have been assuming the intentions of these corporations were neutral before they were invested in by the CCP? >

It means the Party just wants more control.
And i think it's safe to assume they were trying to balance Party and profit before, which the former does not like. >

Every powerful entity wants more power and control. That's just the nature of the beast
No different than Amazon or the US government. We just have to be vigilant about allowing aforeign power control >

The US government owns Amazon? 
Oh wait, no they don't. >

It's more like Amazon owns the US government. >

Please, American companies may have outsized influence thanks to lobbying, but they don't have any actual power. If the US congress decided it was time for amazon to go, (and the courts allowed it because rule of law exists) then there would nothing amazon could do about it. >

Your daily reminder that 'China' owns 5%  of reddit. >

Holy fuck >

Yeah, Xi hates being compared to Winnie-the-Pooh on Reddit, and we definitely should never discuss how Xi looks like Winnie-the-Pooh. >

just the fact you and everyone else can say it without troubles show these 5% doesn't mean much right now.
It could change but for now it's fine >

You should see how the news on Uyghur forced labour camps is moderated. But you won't because they're banned and muted before anyone can see it (probably just like this post). >

idk if anyone’s been on Reddit long enough they’ve probably seen thousands of Uyghur posts, where we all circlejerk about how Chinese people eat Muslim babies. 
then move onto the next post where we discuss how Europe is being ruined by Muslim immigration, and they should be forcibly detained and sent back to where the came from to preserve Han - oops, sorry I mean Western - values >

Nice camouflaged whataboutism, you're a good functionaire >

A mere utensil of his master's will >

This has already been happening, I guess they just wanted to make it official. >

Why is this a problem? Are you serious?
Some American companies have ties to the government. They are still independent and not under the governments control.
Where as companies in China have a position for the CCP. A lot of tech companies have CCP members on the board to dictate what the company does and now they are buying a portion of the company to solidify control.
If you don't see the CCP increasing its control of companies as an issue then that's on you. >

It's an issue cause the Chinese govt will and already has censored content in games. Try to find references to Tibet in games sold in China.
It doesn't happen. Goes against free creative process. Plus you know concentration camps >

i think there are more dangerous things related to this than game censorship >

Sure but censorship is dangerous too >

It's actually pretty clever. By buying shares, it's a legitimate takeover that won't spook off investors from future projects, but at the same time gives the government a big say in how the business should be managed >

didn't the CCP force Jack Ma to go into hiding, and recently relinquish decision-making power over his companies? >

The CCP already has de facto control over large corporations like ANT group and Tencent >

No.... wait, wait, wait.... Im going to need some time to process this bombshell.... >

Im shock too i thought they got the influence even without the share. >

Chinese corporations with alot of employees always have the party members create an internal committee that then interacts directly with the C-C-P government for communications and business/opportunities that naturally empowers the committee when dealing with the corporation. By such defacto situations the C-C-P automatically has significant influence and internal data on many businesses but securing shares of a valuable corporation and board seats makes the control that much stronger. Jack Ma was already squeezed (they disappeared him for some months) for control of Alibaba and ANT being publicly blocked after he criticized the C-C-Ps antiquated banking system calling them basically stupid. It was just a matter of time after this successful strong arming they go after more control of ANT and TENCENT considering their powerful positions of these businesses over Chinese society. >

We call this nationalization. >

I think Nationalisation isn't all bad. For services like power generation, poles and wires, water and sewerage - government control ensures all areas have quality access and not just the most profitable ones.
Ofc, Tencent is not a service - so I guess it's a moot point. >

They don’t need to buy its all theirs lol >

It's only ten cent really cheap.. >

Buy one, get two free, lah. >

Partial nationalization? Perhaps this is part of a gradual process whereby Deng’s reforms are gradually retired and the Party takes more direct control of economy again. That’s clearly what Xi has been working toward, though he has only really taken baby steps towards it so far. I think the interpretation of the goal to be a “modern socialist state” in 2035 is still going to involve a lot of private enterprise, but with government intervention. >

This was always Deng's plan as well so it makes sense. >

Yeah, it’s so bizarre that everyone seems to think that Deng was genuinely some capitalist and Xi is turning his plan upside down. It’s not some secret: Jiang and Hu and Xi have all opined about this openly for decades. It’s like the old adage about the definition of Asia: a country is in Asia if you can be an expert on it without speaking its predominant language >

One thing we got to give China props for is that they know how to keep their giant companies and dipshit billionaires in line. >

The guys doing this are billionaires too >

The Chinese government doesn't have to buy shares to have a direct impact on the decision making process of Chinese based businesses. >

Clearly they do, or at least the CCP thinks they do.
We already know the CCP passes laws specifically targeting corporations in China to get them to do things the way they want to, and we also know in the last decade a number of these have been specifically targeting tech companies. They grew rather explosively and the CCP is justifiably worried about the influence of these companies. 
The government taking stakes in companies has a number of potential consequences for these companies’ influence internationally which means the CCP thinks more official control over these companies outweighs those consequences. >

Yes, that’s where part of their indirect influence comes from. Doesn’t really change that CCP is clearly worried that this indirect is no longer enough to control the companies, otherwise there would be no reason for the CCP to need to buy shares in those countries. >

Wake up America to what Tik tok actually is >

Nationalization with fewer steps ? Or more steps ? Really confused about this one. >

Nationalization threshold is at majority amount of shares.
It's possible China still hasn't hit that threshold for those companies but acquired sufficient enough shares to be considered "major investors" and thus has more say than before in how those companies should operate. >

Acting as if a price of doing buisness in China is letting the government in and giving them control. >

For examples, see:

Apple (stores Chinese users' data in a DC that the CCP tell them to)
Microsoft (has a separate China version of O365)
Nintendo (restricted eShop catalogue in China) >

Implying the CCP doesn't already have said powers >

Why do they need to buy shares? Can’t they just give orders? >

Xinnie the poop's Power Trip is getting too strong. >

I’m starting to think the CCP isn’t that communist >

Just ban all their products already >

That would probably be 75 percent of what you have in your house >

My disdain for tencent deepens. >

Tencent is an investor in Reddit. >

both stocks heading for zero? >

and this is the Thesis of Why Nations Fail. I knew sooner or later China was going to go down this road, Good bye innovation >

For all practical purpose CCP has nationalize private company. >

I like how they could do this without this but you know.. >

'Buying' yeah right. The Alibaba shares were graciously 'donated' after the founder disappeared. >

Chinese communism is very confusing. >

It’s just capitalism >

Clash of Clans players…this will not affect your town hall levels whatsoever.  You will just pay 9.99 a month to keep your current setups so the CCP can sell you gems at a “discounted” price. >

All those valuable shares bought with C-C-P fun coupons... LOL >

Aka we are gonna kill jack ma and just take his shares instead of buying them >

"Communist" >

Everybody knows that Communism is when a mega-corporation works in the same exact same way as in a Neo-Liberal society...but it's owned (partially) by the state.
Because fuck the workers. >

Never, ever buy a Chinese stock or any stock in a totalitarian country. You may make money but the risks are always higher than usual. >

They bought the shares they don’t took them… >

hey sweet cards are coming down. 
Video games are the big business that people wanna be in. 
..yay?  
Can we get some digital rights maybe? >

so, about to be mismanaged into bankruptcy? >

Probably. The rumored special right is to veto some or any business decisions. I don't think any company can do proper business with a 1% shareholder who has special veto rights. >

Well maybe  those chinese stocks will finally go up now that the communist party has a financial stake in them. Watch them crush the competition. >

Expecting even more propaganda from SCMP since they're owned by Alibaba.
And hoping that Epic doesn't get fucked with too much by being partially owned by Tencent >

Epic and any non chinese should run to the government for help >

Funny how the "Communist" CCP continues to grow the state and engage in capitalism. >

More obvious than when FBI pressures networks to support official statements about COVID for instance. >

Meh. Probably don’t buy that new Logitech/Tencent handheld. It’s got the tik tok virus >

doesn't tencent own a big portion of epic games? so your gonna get banned in fortnight for saying winnie the pooh. >

40% or something like that. >

Well, looks like my tik tok account is gonna turn into nothing but pictures of Xi Ping with the Winnie the Pooh theme playing. >

And board seats as well if reports are correct. >

Puts on ally! >

What does this mean for overseas shareholders that have actually bought shares of this company? >

It's cute that overseas shareholders thought they had any rights in China. >

Oh as in they didn't have those rights already? Don't fool yourselves. >

Alibaba to the moon! But upside down! >

You mean they hadn't already sold those rights yet? >

Huh!!! >

Isnt the ccp required by their law to own 51% of any company in their country >

It's more like " we are taking this company for ccp, be glad we're paying you" >

I could never get Alibaba to take any of my cards, so I always just used Aliexpress for buying cheap crap >

Did jack Ma ever show up? >

This is the case for every large business in China, I'm assuming that included tik tok >

Me with a pikachu face, who was dead certain the socialist party in China already had sufficient shares. >

I thought they already have that power by law? Why buying shares? >

Well that would explain why alibaba stock has skyrocketed in the last few months >

China gonna be up in my Warframes. >

Great! Even more reasons not to trust Chinese companies! >

Yeah like fucking darktide. Fuck. >

Honestly.... is it even neccesary for them to buy the shares? Like I'm pretty sure they can block anything they want to even without buying the shares... >

Stop playing tencent games and hopefully the ccps hubris will lead to these companies’ downfalls >

League of legends actually now owned by the chinese government, nice. >

Isn't Tencent theirs? And besides that what does it mean a country buying shares in a company? A country or state can't be lead as a company. >

Lots of companies are state owned >

Reminds me of The Godfather movie: “Either your brains or your signature go on the contract. It’s up to you.” >

Mainly, no Winnie the Pooh references. >

Who didn't see this coming.  Companies should of not been greedy Taking that tencent money but that's not going to happen. >

What's the problem with that.  The German govt have done it to the DP DHL group and SAP.  The UK govt have done it to BA and BAE.  Etc. >

Swedish Vattenfall, French Safran are a few I can roll off the top of my head.
I also know a few contractors of intelligent tools owned by the USA. >

Discord... Zynga... so many others. >

Ummm... That's kinda how communism works. >

Keep buying on aliexpress, I hope your 10 cent figurine was worth over the thousands of lives Chinese goverment fucks up daily. >

Pretty sure they already has influence over business decisions. This looks more like the soft nationalization that’s happening with real estate companies as well. >

And they say capitalism is bad >

TenCent owns a share in reddit. >

Xi Jinping showing about as much business sense as felon Musk. >

It’s not about business, it’s about control.
It’s somewhat of an open secret that the CCP is worried about the influence of large tech companies, clearly the CCP is worried that their de facto control over domestic corporations is not enough to keep them in line. >

Doesn't China already own these companies >

Surprisingly no. China doesn’t really have that much direct control over a number of larger companies in the country, especially tech giants such as AliBaba and Tencent.
Generally China exerts control over large corporations by passing new or enforcing existing legislation that specifically targets these corporations if they were to step out of line. More drastic measure occur if they very overtly step out of line (see Jack Ma disappearing for a while).
It’s been somewhat of an open secret that the CCP is justifiably worried about the influence these tech companies have, which is why a number of the above actions have been targeting tech companies in the last decade.
Direct ownership and control of these companies has potential international consequences for those companies, and so the CCP clearly thinks that the additional step to control these companies are worth those consequences. >

Show me any modern "communist" regime, and I'll show you a 100% capitalist oligarchy. >

Right…
“Capitalist oligarchy” is what exists in Russia. China is communist state that instituted state capitalism on a global level and quasi-socialist control domestically. 
Party members are embedded in every major company and assert or attempt to assert control in areas they deem relevant for state interest. As you can imagine that scope can vary. Beyond that they allow companies to operate in a quasi mixed market domestically as you would find in similar but not same way in the west. Internationally the state leverages a lot of control to both directly with the company as well as via exploiting the liberal systems in place post WW2 like WTO, trade agreements etc etc. 
This is a nuanced topic that is done in injustice by speaking in generalities or platitudes >

You just described an oligarchy with extra steps. Maybe just one extra step. The US is also probably an oligarchy due to how directly influential corporations are on our government. Conversely, the state controlling business interest for the benefit of a select few politically-aligned individuals is also a type of oligarchy. It doesn't matter if the coercion originates from the state or from the private sector. The result is the same-- concentration of power and wealth. >

You don’t seem to understand what an oligarchy is
You seem to be trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole and I’m not sure you’re making much progress >

And you do? Here is the definition of an oligarchy: an oligarchy is a power-structure where a small group of people have control of a country, an organization, or an institution. That's what an oligarchy is in the simplest terms.  
Can you explain, in simple terms, how this DOES NOT describe the CCP? Spoilers, you can't, because that's what the CCP demonstrably is. 
There are many different types of regimes or governing systems that can fall under this umbrella. You're trying to salami-slice and act like the term "oligarchy" has a very narrow definition, but it doesn't. For example, an absolute monarchy is a type of oligarchy where the power is concentrated among a few people, based on blood-relation or the concept of birthright rule. That makes Saudi Arabia a de facto oligarchy. All other totalitarian or authoritarian governments are oligarchies, by default. North Korea is definitely an oligarchy. Iran is one also-- the only difference with Iran is in the way that power is exerted by a small number of religious authorities, the clerics and the morality police. Still an oligarchy, just an openly theocratic one. 
It's not a black or white binary issue either. Countries can have a wealthy "ruling class" that closely resembles an oligarchy, with a few key exceptions. That's what the US has. 
In the case of China though? To argue that the CCP is NOT an oligarchy, you'd have to make up a completely different definition for 
what an oligarchy is, that carves out a massive exception for China, while ALSO describing other countries that we know are oligarchies. The problem is, it's not possible to come up with a consistent definition for oligarchy in other countries that doesn't ALSO describe the Chinese government, at the same time. You're stuck. >

lol, so effectively what they’ve done is make their business model to be only China based? Why would anyone trust Alibaba anymore? Also, Tencent funding will be scrutinised and anyone looking to get into government or any areas deemed sensitive will not be looked at positively >

Governments shouldn’t be allowed to invest in businesses. >

Only a matter of time that EPIC games goes away in the US, after TikTok gets removed. >

This is why the US banned Huawei, ZTE etc.  Chinese companies are never really independent. >

Do they really need to go through the hassle of buying shares when they can just disappear the leadership/majority owners? Just look at what happened with Jack Ma.