True. We invaded, colonized, suppressed.
That doesn’t make this a lesser invasion. It’s hard to have an open market and protect the local producers at the meantime.
Are you sure about that? Selling cheap EVs does seem to be a lesser invasion than raping and pillaging European style, if it can even be called an invasion in the first place.
The western sphere has been running a racket against the global south for the last century, ensuring none of their resources can be owned by the citizens of the land, and forcing them to buy back the assembled goods, now you’re complaining that your precious less-than-free market is being undermined with similar tactics?
Your problem is with capitalism. You are against the profit motive that forces companies to expand into new markets or die. For some reason you are choosing to frame this in a way that equates market expansion with an actual military invasion.
The problem that I see is the EU governments not reacting accordingly.
Chinese companies that are of a certain size have to allow govt representatives in the boards. The clear strategy is to take over and the way it’s organized has similarities with military strategy. They send out spies (and I’m not saying EU or US isn’t doing the same), they have illegal police stations in the EU to make sure people don’t defect (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003838_EN.html).
The objective is to weaken or destroy local production and gather as much Intel as possible. This is not about a company like BYD entering the market to claim their spot. This is about the government deploying a wider strategy. If you don’t like the word invasion than I’m sorry. I can’t find a better way to phrase it.
And to make things clear I’m not judging anyone. It’s just something that I’m noticing.
You understand the reason for this is to ensure that Chinese companies are held accountable to the people? Just like in Germany, where companies have board members from the bank that is financing them, to ensure that companies are held accountable to financiers
It goes deeper than accountability.
If it would be confined to board memebers then the analogy would stick but there is also a mandatory représentation in management.
Although the specific amendments vary by company, in many SOEs—and even some private companies—these “party building” provisions include giving the company’s internal Party organization a voice in management decisions and ensuring that key personnel of the Party organization also serve in management or board positions. Already required for SOEs, the CCP has recently begun to extend this system to private enterprises.
In some companies it goes really deep.
For example, in April 2018 a website run by the CCP Organization Department released an article about the Chinese internet giant Tencent, heralding the significant overlap between the company’s Party organization and its management. According to the article, Tencent’s information security management team, which also handles “public opinion guidance,” is led by a deputy secretary of the firm’s internal Party organization, and 80 percent of the team are Party members.The article also states that eleven members of the Tencent Party organization are company executives or heads of major business departments. This overlap between the Party organization and firm management suggests a deeper and more surreptitious influence on company operations than is commonly assumed, particularly as Xi Jinping has made clear that all Party members should “keep in mind that their first identity is as a Party member, and their first duty is to work for the Party.”
I’m aware that this should be no surprise and all in line with China’s governmental structure but I’m not sure that European lawmakers are aware of this. China’s gonna China and they have the right to do so.
You do realise this is all good and as it should be, right? To make sure that companies operate in the public good, and not purely for their own profit?
I generally distrust state actors. Especially when they take up seats in companies. There are certain things you should never leave to private companies like water, electricity or public transport but there is no freedom when you install permanent supervision in every corner of society.
But I speak from a democracy. There’s no comparison when you speak from a single party government.
That’s it, I suppose. I would never trust the government. Not in the long run. Elected politicians have a program but, and I know that from actively writing legislation, after a few years it is hard to find a politician that is still on the same course as when elected.
Well, that’s the thing, there is a single party, but this does not mean China is not a democracy. Their government is far more responsive to protests and popular demands, and the Chinese Communist Party is made up from millions of people who get a say from the local level upwards. People are actively involved in designing policy. Contrast this to the US and UK, for instance, where the voices of the general public are drowned out and ignored, and elections are won by appealing to the interests of big businesses and foreign donors. In the UK right now we have a government which is completely beholden to business interests, and a Labour party which has repeatedly purged its socialist elements under the guise of combating anti-semitism. It would be less antagonising if they admitted what they were really all about, which is crushing the working class. We even have a monarchy and state sponsored propaganda to prop them up.
i’m all for using tariffs to expand your local productive capacity, but describing market forces as “invasion” is just silly. You want invasion? France is still running an old-school colonial empire – for fuck’s sake, they’re charging reparations for “”““freeing””“” the countries they violently took over in the first place!
Yes colonialism bad… But that’s not what we’re discussing here.
If your government is deliberately funding industry so that they’re able to flood markets at stupid low prices, even at a loss and with the sole goal to destroy competition and take over than that can be seen as an invasion. I’m not saying any other country is doing better or worse. Yes, France is still doing bad stuff, so is the UK.
I never said that. As a country they are taking giant leaps and bringing prosperity to their civilians.
But they are doing the same as, for example Uber. This company has never made any profit and is purposefully pushing competitors out of the market while they keep pouring funds into the bottomless pit.
Same for Ryanair.
Disruptors enter the market with war funds. They deliberately lose money with the promise that when the dust clears they will be the last man standing.
True. We invaded, colonized, suppressed. That doesn’t make this a lesser invasion.
Well shit, if what we’re already doing is no lesser an invasion than what Europe did, we might as well burn down Versailles while we’re at it. Why not? It’s exactly the same level of evil to selling cheap solar panels.
True. We invaded, colonized, suppressed. That doesn’t make this a lesser invasion. It’s hard to have an open market and protect the local producers at the meantime.
Are you sure about that? Selling cheap EVs does seem to be a lesser invasion than raping and pillaging European style, if it can even be called an invasion in the first place.
I meant it semantically, not literally. Of course. English is my third language.
The western sphere has been running a racket against the global south for the last century, ensuring none of their resources can be owned by the citizens of the land, and forcing them to buy back the assembled goods, now you’re complaining that your precious less-than-free market is being undermined with similar tactics?
I agree and I’m not complaining.
Your problem is with capitalism. You are against the profit motive that forces companies to expand into new markets or die. For some reason you are choosing to frame this in a way that equates market expansion with an actual military invasion.
The problem that I see is the EU governments not reacting accordingly.
Chinese companies that are of a certain size have to allow govt representatives in the boards. The clear strategy is to take over and the way it’s organized has similarities with military strategy. They send out spies (and I’m not saying EU or US isn’t doing the same), they have illegal police stations in the EU to make sure people don’t defect (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003838_EN.html).
The objective is to weaken or destroy local production and gather as much Intel as possible. This is not about a company like BYD entering the market to claim their spot. This is about the government deploying a wider strategy. If you don’t like the word invasion than I’m sorry. I can’t find a better way to phrase it.
And to make things clear I’m not judging anyone. It’s just something that I’m noticing.
You understand the reason for this is to ensure that Chinese companies are held accountable to the people? Just like in Germany, where companies have board members from the bank that is financing them, to ensure that companies are held accountable to financiers
It goes deeper than accountability. If it would be confined to board memebers then the analogy would stick but there is also a mandatory représentation in management.
In some companies it goes really deep.
For example, in April 2018 a website run by the CCP Organization Department released an article about the Chinese internet giant Tencent, heralding the significant overlap between the company’s Party organization and its management. According to the article, Tencent’s information security management team, which also handles “public opinion guidance,” is led by a deputy secretary of the firm’s internal Party organization, and 80 percent of the team are Party members.The article also states that eleven members of the Tencent Party organization are company executives or heads of major business departments. This overlap between the Party organization and firm management suggests a deeper and more surreptitious influence on company operations than is commonly assumed, particularly as Xi Jinping has made clear that all Party members should “keep in mind that their first identity is as a Party member, and their first duty is to work for the Party.”
I’m aware that this should be no surprise and all in line with China’s governmental structure but I’m not sure that European lawmakers are aware of this. China’s gonna China and they have the right to do so.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-challenge-communist-corporate-governance
You do realise this is all good and as it should be, right? To make sure that companies operate in the public good, and not purely for their own profit?
I generally distrust state actors. Especially when they take up seats in companies. There are certain things you should never leave to private companies like water, electricity or public transport but there is no freedom when you install permanent supervision in every corner of society.
But I speak from a democracy. There’s no comparison when you speak from a single party government.
That’s it, I suppose. I would never trust the government. Not in the long run. Elected politicians have a program but, and I know that from actively writing legislation, after a few years it is hard to find a politician that is still on the same course as when elected.
Well, that’s the thing, there is a single party, but this does not mean China is not a democracy. Their government is far more responsive to protests and popular demands, and the Chinese Communist Party is made up from millions of people who get a say from the local level upwards. People are actively involved in designing policy. Contrast this to the US and UK, for instance, where the voices of the general public are drowned out and ignored, and elections are won by appealing to the interests of big businesses and foreign donors. In the UK right now we have a government which is completely beholden to business interests, and a Labour party which has repeatedly purged its socialist elements under the guise of combating anti-semitism. It would be less antagonising if they admitted what they were really all about, which is crushing the working class. We even have a monarchy and state sponsored propaganda to prop them up.
i’m all for using tariffs to expand your local productive capacity, but describing market forces as “invasion” is just silly. You want invasion? France is still running an old-school colonial empire – for fuck’s sake, they’re charging reparations for “”““freeing””“” the countries they violently took over in the first place!
Yes colonialism bad… But that’s not what we’re discussing here.
If your government is deliberately funding industry so that they’re able to flood markets at stupid low prices, even at a loss and with the sole goal to destroy competition and take over than that can be seen as an invasion. I’m not saying any other country is doing better or worse. Yes, France is still doing bad stuff, so is the UK.
Google image pictures of China and tell me if they look like they are running businesses at a loss because they are evil, mischievous orientals
I never said that. As a country they are taking giant leaps and bringing prosperity to their civilians.
But they are doing the same as, for example Uber. This company has never made any profit and is purposefully pushing competitors out of the market while they keep pouring funds into the bottomless pit. Same for Ryanair.
Disruptors enter the market with war funds. They deliberately lose money with the promise that when the dust clears they will be the last man standing.
Well shit, if what we’re already doing is no lesser an invasion than what Europe did, we might as well burn down Versailles while we’re at it. Why not? It’s exactly the same level of evil to selling cheap solar panels.