China on Thursday accused the United States of “fabricating spy narratives” to justify a technology “blockade”, stepping up its pushback against reports that the woman Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had an affair with was a Chinese intelligence asset.

  • Nola@piefed.zipEnglish
    21·
    6 hours ago

    This front has been known for over a year. You can find Reuters or the Guardian reporting on it.

    And while you are overstating Chinese corporate ownership(its more like having stakes in companies that compose 60% of their GDP, and a lot of that is concentrated in the commanding heights and the rest is often minority stakes through state linked investment firms), that sort of just makes any and everyone a “spy” for the CCP if that is the criteria.

    Which then sort of makes that designation functionally useless and taken to it’s logical conclusion would mean any romantic relationship with Chinese business leaders by Americans in positions of influence or power is fraternizing with a spy

    And from there what exactly is the allegation? Nvidia has a vested interest in wanting their products to be integral to AI everywhere. Including China. This is not a viewpoint Huang just established last year. It’s been his perspective from the jump, and part of a broader libertarian ethos.

    Frankly, I would be asking who benefits domestically for this becoming a zeitgeist moment right now given the only thing truly new is the second affair? Like who might benefit from pushing out a CEO that supports open-weight AI strategies favored by China and putting government pressure on the company to shift away from that business strategy?

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      6 hours ago

      (its more like having stakes in companies that compose 60% of their GDP, and a lot of that is concentrated in the commanding heights and the rest is often minority stakes through state linked investment firms),

      Nope:

      The overarching goal was to weave the party “comprehensively” into the fabric of the economy’s private sector (Central Organization Department, 2012). Local authorities were directed to establish special agencies to support this goal and firms were requested to seek guidance from local party leaders on important managerial decisions. Further, governments were mandated to use firm-based party cells to advance party-related policy beyond the reach of formal state institutions. The service-oriented character of party organisation was also underlined in a Central Committee document from 2014. While mainly addressing party cells in public organisations, it stipulated that company-based party cells should assist corporate production and operation, and serve as the central mechanism for political leadership of a company’s development (政治引领, zhengzhi yinling) (General Office of the Central Committee, 2014).

      The 2012 central regulation was personally endorsed by Xi Jinping in several speeches (Xinhua, 2012). The intervention of the top party leadership contributed to a rapid increase in the percentage of private businesses with a party cell embedded in their organisation: from 21 per cent in 2010 to 73 per cent in 2017 (Koss, 2021: 229). Among China’s top 500 private companies, 92 per cent had established party cells by 2020 (Chinese Private Enterprise Survey, 2020). Nevertheless, implementation efforts encountered various challenges, including the lack of clear and specific guidelines, instances where business owners co-opted party organisations for their own benefit, and a significant number of inactive party cells (Yan and Huang, 2017).

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/18681026261445459

      They literally have to have government official embedded in their corporations

      • Nola@piefed.zipEnglish
        21·
        5 hours ago

        Yes, many, if not most companies inside their strategically defined industries(the commanding heights in particular) have party cadre in some capacity. I never disputed that

        It is not literally every company though.

        And furthermore your own citation hints at the next key point, what this functionally means and looks like varies and it’s functional relationship to the core CCP leadership is even more diffuse at times.

        The system is designed to ensure Chinese capitalism remains in it’s “birdcage” and key sectors will stay aligned with larger industrial policy. Yes, I am well aware of this.

        But again, the core point I was making is that that sort of criteria just makes any and everyone a “spy” for the CCP.

        Which then sort of makes that designation functionally useless and taken to it’s logical conclusion would mean any romantic relationship with Chinese business leaders by Americans in positions of influence or power is fraternizing with a spy.

        And so what then is the actual allegation? And why did it take a year to scandalize it?

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          5 hours ago

          Local authorities were directed to establish special agencies to support this goal and firms were requested to seek guidance from local party leaders on important managerial decisions.

          • Nola@piefed.zipEnglish
            21·
            5 hours ago

            And?

            Do you have a point beyond dragging me along as you slowly educate yourself(poorly) about the Chinese party cadre system thru your reactionary lens?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              5 hours ago

              At this point I’m just going to accept this is something a week old account with less than 50 comments can understand…

              I’ll see you on your next account I guess.

              • Nola@piefed.zipEnglish
                2·
                4 hours ago

                Or, you could you know actually address the core points I raised(including inside your own citation that noted how this system is far more nuanced and complex then you seem to grasp) instead of whatever this pedantry is supposed to be achieving?

                Like I suspect, but I don’t want to assume, that your implication is that this cadre system is itself proof by its mere existence towards the larger Chinese honeypot conspiracy being speculated. And probably rooted in some deeper China-phobic understanding of how the Chinese political and economic system itself operates. And that butts up with an internalized belief in a neoliberal worldview that has never really questioned the core social relationship between the state and private capital and by extension how many of the implications you are putting forward with your logic chain could apply to US CEO’s too. Or more accurately, could apply to all our politicians that are co-dependent to corporate money and capitalist billionaires and a state designed to uphold that system. Thus it is in fact just as possible to make a similar argument that every US CEO or politician is a asset for the US empire.

                But the question still remains, what is the charge I am supposed to be outraged about here? And is there any proof of some deeper charge beyond someone that may or may not be a Chinese asset engaging in business both had a pre-existing interest in engaging in?