Having a voting and a non-voting class of shares is relatively common around the world, tbh. Jack Ma held 53% of voting shares, so he should've theoretically kept control.

This doesn't really sound like a decision based on the rule of law, but more like a political one designed to specifically hurt Jack Ma's power, especially considering his "absence" a few years ago.

This ruling isn't turning the company into a co-op. All it did is shift power from one group of rich chinese people to another. It's not really anything to celebrate.

[–] nohaybanda@hexbear.net 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

All laws are political, fam. There is no such thing as apolitical rule of law. And non-voting shares are bullshit even under capitalisms already bullshit system.

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're conflating two different things. Law is political, and that's fine. Court rulings are not supposed to be political, though, they're supposed to be based solely on the rule of law. That's the only way to ensure the law applies equally to everyone, rich or poor alike.

I agree that voting/non-voting shares are bullshit, but so are shares held by anyone but the workers themselves (which would be a co-op).

[–] nohaybanda@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Do you have any evidence that the law was misapplied or applied in a non standard way in this case? Other than china bad I mean.