8 ms·

I think this, in combination with the author's previous article about the moves the CCP have made on Ma's business make it pretty clear what is happening. Ma is

I think this, in combination with the author's previous article about the moves the CCP have made on Ma's business make it pretty clear what is happening. Ma is being held whilst his businesses are dismantled. Ant is being turned into a traditional bank, Alibaba is being attacked from several directions, Ma's university (a clear source of soft power) is being shut down. When you then ask where Ma is I would say it's pretty clear - Ma is being held out of the way whilst this happens. There's no point in causing drama whist they're doing this, just hold him out of the way and in about 18 months there'll be nothing for him to come back to. At that point they'll no longer need him, all the businesses will be managed by cronies of the state. So what happens when they no longer need him? If he's lucky they'll let him manage some tiny sliver of his former empire, but I can't imagine them taking the risk of him fleeing and becoming a powerful critic, so I guess most likely thing to do is trump up charges of corruption and prosecute him.

Bojui 5y ago
What happens if Xi kicks the can tomorrow? How smooth is the transition going to be? China is so massive I cant understand how they dont have multiple power centers bumping into each other all the time.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Xi has been in power for under a decade, and there likely are many competing power struggles that take place under him.
- fmajid 5y ago
  Xi wants no waves for the CCP 100th Anniversary celebrations and a few other key milestones this year. That’s why even the wolf warriors are being muzzled at the moment.
- TwoFerMaggie 5y ago
  Well last time there was a "successor problem" China went through a decade-long political and economic turmoil that was the Cultural Revolution. Having experienced that first hand, Deng implemented the term limit, so that there won't be a position of absolute power for the rest of one's life (it's just too much a temptation and thus recipe for chaos every 20-30 years or so). Now that the term limit is gone, I don't think the transition would be as smooth as the past two decades.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Having experienced that first hand, Deng implemented the term limit No... the man had zero sympathies for the civil state. He just planned to stay in power way longer, and organised it so that all senior party men coming after him will be in compromised positions. Similarly, Jiang never left the power on good terms, but with a hefty pack of compromising info on party elites, and arranging for new coming leadership being very weak. Only Hu possibly left the power unconditionally, and without any power left, but only because he was weak.
  - MsMowz 5y ago
    This overlooks many changes that have occurred in the recent decades, such as the restructuring of the PLA (including their decoupling from state business), the development of the socialist market economy, and the further development of the rank and file organization of the party. All of these give structure and order where they didn't exist before. The leadership roles in the party have never been less significant within Chinese internal politics, as the collective leadership has been strengthening for the last three decades.
    - noone321 5y ago
      I really don't know where to start with this. The short answer is no. The long answer is Stalin's supporters said the exact same things. And it's not a surprise -- Xi is borrowing a lot from Stalin's centralization playbook, including "restructuring" the PLA (i.e., purging generals who weren't loyal to him personally and ensuring he has a Party loyalist on every ship) and developing the rank and file (to replace the Party leaders he purged in "corruption scandals"). However, this time around, those of us outside the system smells the b.s. a mile away. China would be wise to remember that Stalin came thisclose to losing WWII because of these changes. Purging military leaders may make them loyal to you, but it doesn't make them good at their actual jobs.
      - MsMowz 5y ago
        I think we must have different understandings of what causes power struggles within leadership. The comparison to the 1953-1956 period in the USSR also feels a bit misplaced to me, as although there was a minor power struggle during that period, it didn’t have broad implications the way the death of Mao did. (I also don’t agree that the structure of the CPC is all that similar to the structure of the CPSU during Stalin’s leadership, but that’s not of much relevance in my mind.) RE: the PLA and the party membership, I was referring to changes that mostly took place during the 1990s, which had much broader implications on the locations of structural power within the PRC than anything that’s been done in the last decade.
- rswail 5y ago
  They do, if you remember a while back the head of Shanghai area was prosecuted and brought down on corruption charges, that consolidated power in current leadership because he was an alternate center.
- MsMowz 5y ago
  The centralized, unitary structure of the Chinese government and the CPC make it unlikely that there will be a power struggle — there aren't many levers that would-be power players have to pull to achieve their goals (unlike after the Death of Mao, by contrast). Xi holds three positions of authority in China, and it's unlikely that anyone would immediately replace him in all three, as it's only happened in his case because of the confidence that the membership of the CPC has in his faction. The next General Secretary of the party and Chairman of the CMC would both be elected by the party's Central Committee. Whoever is selected as General Secretary will most likely also be chosen as President, since this is mostly a ceremonial role. The majority of the Central Committee are in the same faction as Xi is currently, so it seems more likely than not that they'll find people from within their ranks to fill these positions and attempt to strengthen the collective leadership.
- zucker42 5y ago
  Talking with a Chinese friend of mine, his take was that Jack Ma's imprisonment/disappearance is less about his comments in the October speech and more about an ongoing power struggle in the CCP between supporters of the former General Secretary Jiang Zemin, who is an ally of Jack Ma, and the Xi Jinping faction. The October speech may have just been the catalyst and pretense. As for how smooth the transition would be, Chinese politics are pretty opaque and I'm far from an expert, but from the outside it appears the Xi faction is fairly strong and only growing in power, so I would guess the transition wouldn't be too turbulent. I definitely think politics are less unified in China that it may appear, and the whole situation with Jack Ma is an example of "multiple power centers bumping into each other".
  - HKH2 5y ago
    Yes, I've heard the same thing. Jiang Zemin, Jack Ma, and others like Deng Xiaoping are/were more interested in making money. Xi Jinping is more ideologically motivated, and wishes he could be Mao Zedong.
drumhead 5y ago
So Medieval. The Crown accuses you of corruption/sedition/treachery, prosecutes you then confiscates your property as a fine. A bit like Henry 7th in England during his reign. Also a bit like Putin against any oligarchs who dared to oppose him. But then I suppose its a standard pattern of behaviour to give their actions the sheen of lawfulness.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Or like civil forfeiture, the only difference is how rich the victims are.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    That's quite a stretch. In civil forfeiture the victim isn't disappeared/re-educated.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      The victim has little influence in the first place, there's no need to make sure they can't cause further trouble.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  I would say it's plain communism: nothing is yours, the state owns everything (including your life). But I guess the difference between crown and communism is best explained in Animal Farm.
  - permo-w 5y ago
    It’s just authoritarianism
    - nickpp 5y ago
arvigeus 5y ago
I don't think CCP would throw away billions of worth just because they dislike the man. Unlike the west, China is allowed to meddle into the affairs of any company, so it's not hard to imagine they are just profiting from him, like a shadow takeover. This explains why he is shown around from time to time: to calm down the investors. At some point this circus would be over, and the companies will collapse by themselves.
- Bombthecat 5y ago
  So, you could short the stock and make a killing? In around a year or two?
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Shorting is about market timing. I wouldn't gamble on China not keeping the price high to save face. It could easily go the other way.
    - Bombthecat 5y ago
      The one in China, i would assume that, but what about the stocks traded outside China? You don't buy tencent stocks in Frankfurt for example..
- native_samples 5y ago
  The market cap chart in the article suggests otherwise; since this started hundreds of billions have been wiped off the value of his business empire and its still declining. The trigger was simply a speech where he didn't even criticize the government directly, just the financial infrastructure (which is itself very interesting - why is the CCP so sensitive to criticism of its banks?).
- cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
  The CCP makes a trillion dollars a year off of the current status quo, they can afford to throw away billions as long as the trillion keeps coming in.
74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
how would this impact the stock? it didn't seem to have responded yet to those news. shouldn't that be the case if those theories were true? lots of large investors should have info on Ma's and Alibaba's fate.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  It may be affecting the stock, if you compare the last year to the tech stock prices, it is down significantly. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE?window=5Y&comparison=NASDAQ%3AAMZN https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE?window=5Y&com...
  - 74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
    that's not much, though. alledgedly, a socialist party is taking control of a highly valued capitalist company - shouldn't that provoke a stronger response?
canadianfella 5y ago
Why do people say “whilst”?

Bojui 5y ago

What happens if Xi kicks the can tomorrow? How smooth is the transition going to be? China is so massive I cant understand how they dont have multiple power centers bumping into each other all the time.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Xi has been in power for under a decade, and there likely are many competing power struggles that take place under him.
fmajid 5y ago
Xi wants no waves for the CCP 100th Anniversary celebrations and a few other key milestones this year. That’s why even the wolf warriors are being muzzled at the moment.
TwoFerMaggie 5y ago
Well last time there was a "successor problem" China went through a decade-long political and economic turmoil that was the Cultural Revolution. Having experienced that first hand, Deng implemented the term limit, so that there won't be a position of absolute power for the rest of one's life (it's just too much a temptation and thus recipe for chaos every 20-30 years or so). Now that the term limit is gone, I don't think the transition would be as smooth as the past two decades.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Having experienced that first hand, Deng implemented the term limit No... the man had zero sympathies for the civil state. He just planned to stay in power way longer, and organised it so that all senior party men coming after him will be in compromised positions. Similarly, Jiang never left the power on good terms, but with a hefty pack of compromising info on party elites, and arranging for new coming leadership being very weak. Only Hu possibly left the power unconditionally, and without any power left, but only because he was weak.
- MsMowz 5y ago
  This overlooks many changes that have occurred in the recent decades, such as the restructuring of the PLA (including their decoupling from state business), the development of the socialist market economy, and the further development of the rank and file organization of the party. All of these give structure and order where they didn't exist before. The leadership roles in the party have never been less significant within Chinese internal politics, as the collective leadership has been strengthening for the last three decades.
  - noone321 5y ago
    I really don't know where to start with this. The short answer is no. The long answer is Stalin's supporters said the exact same things. And it's not a surprise -- Xi is borrowing a lot from Stalin's centralization playbook, including "restructuring" the PLA (i.e., purging generals who weren't loyal to him personally and ensuring he has a Party loyalist on every ship) and developing the rank and file (to replace the Party leaders he purged in "corruption scandals"). However, this time around, those of us outside the system smells the b.s. a mile away. China would be wise to remember that Stalin came thisclose to losing WWII because of these changes. Purging military leaders may make them loyal to you, but it doesn't make them good at their actual jobs.
    - MsMowz 5y ago
      I think we must have different understandings of what causes power struggles within leadership. The comparison to the 1953-1956 period in the USSR also feels a bit misplaced to me, as although there was a minor power struggle during that period, it didn’t have broad implications the way the death of Mao did. (I also don’t agree that the structure of the CPC is all that similar to the structure of the CPSU during Stalin’s leadership, but that’s not of much relevance in my mind.) RE: the PLA and the party membership, I was referring to changes that mostly took place during the 1990s, which had much broader implications on the locations of structural power within the PRC than anything that’s been done in the last decade.
rswail 5y ago
They do, if you remember a while back the head of Shanghai area was prosecuted and brought down on corruption charges, that consolidated power in current leadership because he was an alternate center.
MsMowz 5y ago
The centralized, unitary structure of the Chinese government and the CPC make it unlikely that there will be a power struggle — there aren't many levers that would-be power players have to pull to achieve their goals (unlike after the Death of Mao, by contrast). Xi holds three positions of authority in China, and it's unlikely that anyone would immediately replace him in all three, as it's only happened in his case because of the confidence that the membership of the CPC has in his faction. The next General Secretary of the party and Chairman of the CMC would both be elected by the party's Central Committee. Whoever is selected as General Secretary will most likely also be chosen as President, since this is mostly a ceremonial role. The majority of the Central Committee are in the same faction as Xi is currently, so it seems more likely than not that they'll find people from within their ranks to fill these positions and attempt to strengthen the collective leadership.
zucker42 5y ago
Talking with a Chinese friend of mine, his take was that Jack Ma's imprisonment/disappearance is less about his comments in the October speech and more about an ongoing power struggle in the CCP between supporters of the former General Secretary Jiang Zemin, who is an ally of Jack Ma, and the Xi Jinping faction. The October speech may have just been the catalyst and pretense. As for how smooth the transition would be, Chinese politics are pretty opaque and I'm far from an expert, but from the outside it appears the Xi faction is fairly strong and only growing in power, so I would guess the transition wouldn't be too turbulent. I definitely think politics are less unified in China that it may appear, and the whole situation with Jack Ma is an example of "multiple power centers bumping into each other".
- HKH2 5y ago
  Yes, I've heard the same thing. Jiang Zemin, Jack Ma, and others like Deng Xiaoping are/were more interested in making money. Xi Jinping is more ideologically motivated, and wishes he could be Mao Zedong.

drumhead 5y ago

So Medieval. The Crown accuses you of corruption/sedition/treachery, prosecutes you then confiscates your property as a fine. A bit like Henry 7th in England during his reign. Also a bit like Putin against any oligarchs who dared to oppose him. But then I suppose its a standard pattern of behaviour to give their actions the sheen of lawfulness.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Or like civil forfeiture, the only difference is how rich the victims are.
- mthoms 5y ago
  That's quite a stretch. In civil forfeiture the victim isn't disappeared/re-educated.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The victim has little influence in the first place, there's no need to make sure they can't cause further trouble.
koonsolo 5y ago
I would say it's plain communism: nothing is yours, the state owns everything (including your life). But I guess the difference between crown and communism is best explained in Animal Farm.
- permo-w 5y ago
  It’s just authoritarianism
  - nickpp 5y ago

arvigeus 5y ago

I don't think CCP would throw away billions of worth just because they dislike the man. Unlike the west, China is allowed to meddle into the affairs of any company, so it's not hard to imagine they are just profiting from him, like a shadow takeover. This explains why he is shown around from time to time: to calm down the investors. At some point this circus would be over, and the companies will collapse by themselves.

Bombthecat 5y ago
So, you could short the stock and make a killing? In around a year or two?
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Shorting is about market timing. I wouldn't gamble on China not keeping the price high to save face. It could easily go the other way.
  - Bombthecat 5y ago
    The one in China, i would assume that, but what about the stocks traded outside China? You don't buy tencent stocks in Frankfurt for example..
native_samples 5y ago
The market cap chart in the article suggests otherwise; since this started hundreds of billions have been wiped off the value of his business empire and its still declining. The trigger was simply a speech where he didn't even criticize the government directly, just the financial infrastructure (which is itself very interesting - why is the CCP so sensitive to criticism of its banks?).
cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
The CCP makes a trillion dollars a year off of the current status quo, they can afford to throw away billions as long as the trillion keeps coming in.

74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago

how would this impact the stock? it didn't seem to have responded yet to those news. shouldn't that be the case if those theories were true? lots of large investors should have info on Ma's and Alibaba's fate.

rileymat2 5y ago
It may be affecting the stock, if you compare the last year to the tech stock prices, it is down significantly. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE?window=5Y&comparison=NASDAQ%3AAMZN https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE?window=5Y&com...
- 74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
  that's not much, though. alledgedly, a socialist party is taking control of a highly valued capitalist company - shouldn't that provoke a stronger response?

canadianfella 5y ago

Why do people say “whilst”?