6 ms·

What are they supposed to do? Either they comply or they leave the Chinese market. It's that simple. I hope people don't fault these companies for playing ball

What are they supposed to do? Either they comply or they leave the Chinese market. It's that simple. I hope people don't fault these companies for playing ball with a communist government.

ngold 9y ago
That is what I was curious about. That is a country four times the size of America. It would be interesting to see how the conversation went in Apples and Amazons board room though.
- treme 9y ago
  "We rollin'?" "We rollin'"
option 9y ago
They do have influence here (in US) and there (in China). They should certainly comply with law and push for change together with US government. If change is not happening and laws aren't just then they certainly should leave.
- Noxchi 9y ago
  Certainly should leave?
Veratyr 9y ago
Perhaps a naïve question but I mean it honestly: What relevance does communism have here? Is "communist" just being used as a synonym for corrupt or is there another meaning? I'm not American so I suspect I don't associate communism with the same things you do.
- jmknoll 9y ago
  The Chinese government calls itself a communist government. I think the above comment is using communist as shorthand for 'authoritarianism clothed in communism,' which is normally the way things have turned out (USSR, China, Vietnam).
- cgmg 9y ago
  "Communist" implies authoritarian, as in a one-party state.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    Upon further reading, it seems this is largely due to the fact that previous implementations of communist society have included an authoritarian government. I'm mainly reading the Wikipedia pages but it seems that communism in theory is actually stateless and doesn't have a government at all, let alone an authoritarian one: "A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labor." "Marx and Engels maintained that a communist society would have no need for the state as it exists in contemporary capitalist society. The capitalist state mainly exists to enforce hierarchical economic relations, to enforce the exclusive control of property, and to regulate capitalistic economic activities—all of which would be non-applicable to a communist system." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society Intent is understood though, thanks.
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  I'm not American either, I'm Bolivian.
cooper12 9y ago
Not the dreaded "C" word! Thank god capitalist countries have such outstanding human rights records.
- veidr 9y ago
  I take your point, but China specifically has an absysmal, wretched human rights record.
  - askvictor 9y ago
    So fits well with companies from the US, which also specifically has an appalling human rights record.
    - CountSessine 9y ago
      Interesting ... how many dissidents are currently rotting in Google's prisons?
      - comex 9y ago
        Or, more to the point, in US prisons? Arguably Chelsea Manning, but her offense (stealing secrets) was considerably different from mere speech, and she's out of prison now.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - honestoHeminway 9y ago
        In all cooperate colonies? Do outsourced prisons count?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - askvictor 9y ago
        US prisons; Political dissidents not so much, but instead look at the general prison situation, particularly blacks and impoverished, and you start to see what I'm talking about. Then there's the whole Guantanamo bay thing...
veidr 9y ago
Yes, playing ball with a despotic authoritarian regime is precisely what people are faulting these companies for. A lot of companies left the market in South Africa market in the 1980s, to which the parallels are obvious. But they didn't do it because they suddenly woke up and felt like doing the right thing; they did it because people's outrage over human rights in South Africa began to threaten the profits gained from playing ball there[1]. That's why articles like this one are important. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/17/threat-to-profits-spurs-us-exodus-from-south-africa/1e164198-971f-41e7-995e-f379c00be522/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/17/t...
- mistermann 9y ago
  South Africa is tiny, China is an 800 pound gorilla upon which the majority of the world's manufacturing depends. The decision of whether to "play ball" with China needs to be made at the government level, and 10+ years ago. It's too late now, the horse is out of the barn. China, and only China, will decide how they act on the world stage.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    Why are you acting like Apple is the first company to face this dilemma? Google faced a decade ago and chose not to play ball with China with no assistance from any government.
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      … and subsequently capitulated anyway. That's kind of key here.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      How am I acting like that? How do you recommend Apple goes about terminating its relationship with China? Do you think it would have comparable costs and disruption to their business that Google's did?
pera 9y ago
Which basically ends up to the classic deontological vs consequentialist ethic theories. I believe though that if enough companies like Amazon and Google won't accept the conditions imposed by the government then, after some time, they may decide to change their politics.
- CountSessine 9y ago
  Sure. A cabal of tough-as-nails Chinese leaders who lived through the cultural revolution and command the largest standing army on earth will change their politics because Jeff Bezos gives them the cold shoulder. This is western arrogance at its peak.
  - pera 9y ago
    I think you are underestimating the power of the western economy and the negative impact of isolationism. China don't want to play alone.
    - CountSessine 9y ago
      Sure - if we imposed across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and Europe and Japan did likewise, that would be a very, very long lever. Outside of FantasyLand, that will never happen. And Amazon leaving China will have even less impact on China's polity than Google's leaving China did. Don't get me wrong - unlike Apple who really can't leave China and continue to make smartphones, Amazon could and should leave China. Amazon, like Google, will have to comply and cooperate with Chinese authorities in uncomfortable and unethical ways that I think will make it hard for Amazon to retain their best and brightest employees in the rest of the world. And Amazon will never be allowed to gain marketshare or influence in China at the expense of a local company - the deck will be sufficiently stacked against them until they lose, much like what Google was facing.
johnvonneumann 9y ago
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
lstroud 9y ago
I thought you were only supposed to comply with laws you like. ;)

What are they supposed to do? Either they comply or they leave the Chinese market. It's that simple. I hope people don't fault these companies for playing ball with a communist government.

ngold 9y ago

That is what I was curious about. That is a country four times the size of America. It would be interesting to see how the conversation went in Apples and Amazons board room though.

treme 9y ago
"We rollin'?" "We rollin'"

option 9y ago

They do have influence here (in US) and there (in China). They should certainly comply with law and push for change together with US government. If change is not happening and laws aren't just then they certainly should leave.

Noxchi 9y ago
Certainly should leave?

Veratyr 9y ago

Perhaps a naïve question but I mean it honestly: What relevance does communism have here? Is "communist" just being used as a synonym for corrupt or is there another meaning? I'm not American so I suspect I don't associate communism with the same things you do.

jmknoll 9y ago
The Chinese government calls itself a communist government. I think the above comment is using communist as shorthand for 'authoritarianism clothed in communism,' which is normally the way things have turned out (USSR, China, Vietnam).
cgmg 9y ago
"Communist" implies authoritarian, as in a one-party state.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  Upon further reading, it seems this is largely due to the fact that previous implementations of communist society have included an authoritarian government. I'm mainly reading the Wikipedia pages but it seems that communism in theory is actually stateless and doesn't have a government at all, let alone an authoritarian one: "A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labor." "Marx and Engels maintained that a communist society would have no need for the state as it exists in contemporary capitalist society. The capitalist state mainly exists to enforce hierarchical economic relations, to enforce the exclusive control of property, and to regulate capitalistic economic activities—all of which would be non-applicable to a communist system." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society Intent is understood though, thanks.
sergiotapia 9y ago
I'm not American either, I'm Bolivian.

cooper12 9y ago

Not the dreaded "C" word! Thank god capitalist countries have such outstanding human rights records.

veidr 9y ago
I take your point, but China specifically has an absysmal, wretched human rights record.
- askvictor 9y ago
  So fits well with companies from the US, which also specifically has an appalling human rights record.
  - CountSessine 9y ago
    Interesting ... how many dissidents are currently rotting in Google's prisons?
    - comex 9y ago
      Or, more to the point, in US prisons? Arguably Chelsea Manning, but her offense (stealing secrets) was considerably different from mere speech, and she's out of prison now.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - honestoHeminway 9y ago
      In all cooperate colonies? Do outsourced prisons count?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - askvictor 9y ago
      US prisons; Political dissidents not so much, but instead look at the general prison situation, particularly blacks and impoverished, and you start to see what I'm talking about. Then there's the whole Guantanamo bay thing...

veidr 9y ago

Yes, playing ball with a despotic authoritarian regime is precisely what people are faulting these companies for. A lot of companies left the market in South Africa market in the 1980s, to which the parallels are obvious. But they didn't do it because they suddenly woke up and felt like doing the right thing; they did it because people's outrage over human rights in South Africa began to threaten the profits gained from playing ball there[1]. That's why articles like this one are important. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/17/threat-to-profits-spurs-us-exodus-from-south-africa/1e164198-971f-41e7-995e-f379c00be522/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/17/t...

mistermann 9y ago
South Africa is tiny, China is an 800 pound gorilla upon which the majority of the world's manufacturing depends. The decision of whether to "play ball" with China needs to be made at the government level, and 10+ years ago. It's too late now, the horse is out of the barn. China, and only China, will decide how they act on the world stage.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  Why are you acting like Apple is the first company to face this dilemma? Google faced a decade ago and chose not to play ball with China with no assistance from any government.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    … and subsequently capitulated anyway. That's kind of key here.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    How am I acting like that? How do you recommend Apple goes about terminating its relationship with China? Do you think it would have comparable costs and disruption to their business that Google's did?

pera 9y ago

Which basically ends up to the classic deontological vs consequentialist ethic theories. I believe though that if enough companies like Amazon and Google won't accept the conditions imposed by the government then, after some time, they may decide to change their politics.

CountSessine 9y ago
Sure. A cabal of tough-as-nails Chinese leaders who lived through the cultural revolution and command the largest standing army on earth will change their politics because Jeff Bezos gives them the cold shoulder. This is western arrogance at its peak.
- pera 9y ago
  I think you are underestimating the power of the western economy and the negative impact of isolationism. China don't want to play alone.
  - CountSessine 9y ago
    Sure - if we imposed across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and Europe and Japan did likewise, that would be a very, very long lever. Outside of FantasyLand, that will never happen. And Amazon leaving China will have even less impact on China's polity than Google's leaving China did. Don't get me wrong - unlike Apple who really can't leave China and continue to make smartphones, Amazon could and should leave China. Amazon, like Google, will have to comply and cooperate with Chinese authorities in uncomfortable and unethical ways that I think will make it hard for Amazon to retain their best and brightest employees in the rest of the world. And Amazon will never be allowed to gain marketshare or influence in China at the expense of a local company - the deck will be sufficiently stacked against them until they lose, much like what Google was facing.

johnvonneumann 9y ago

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

lstroud 9y ago

I thought you were only supposed to comply with laws you like. ;)