The Chinese Model of Principle: We should Google the Future

 In a recent article, China’s Silicon Ceiling: Beijing/Google skirmish is a reminder that free markets require free minds, posted on Slate January 16, some disturbing realities the way some companies and some countries do business should make us question who we are, who we say we, and what we profess to want for our future, and those who inherit the wind. 

 Daniel Gross uses a touch of irony to make a good point:  that some governments and some companies have no ethical principle, that maybe business is not just business, or that it shouldn’t be—just business as usual.  When we do business, we deal with people, we affect their lives, livelihoods and their health—and sometimes even whether they live or die.  But there are some countries that openly admit they do not believe in ethical business—that business is business, and all for profit—NOT principles, morals, ethics, NOT humanity—humanity has no place in the economics of some regimes.  What rational, humanistic, benign country would openly admit it doesn’t care about humanity?

 China.

 There’s one thing, above all, in the China principle that needs our special attention and should worry every human being on the planet.  Daniel Gross reminds us that “As a group, the Fortune 500 have overlooked or come to terms with the lack of political freedom [in China]. After all, General Motors and KFC are in the business of selling stuff, not principles. And they have to be in China because that’s where the action is.  If you don’t come to the Chinese markets, other countries will,” said Zheng Zeguang,” a mouthpiece for the totalitarian regime.

 The Fortune Five hundred is in the business of selling stuff—not principles?  We should remember that big business is of the people and by the people—it draws from the earth that sustains us and the communities that nourish us.  After all, people make corporations work.  Above everything, industries must be in the business of principles, especially as corporations come to define us and our lives more and more in a super-capitalist zeitgeist.  Principles and business should be inseparable and inalienable. 

 The Coca-Cola Company dries up personal drinking wells, and water tables, contaminates water systems that small everyday people rely on.  Factories from GM deplete resources, exacerbate war and pollute our air (delaying and preventing greener technology)—blackening our lungs and contributing to kidney failure and other ailments and malformations, etc.—and KFC and McDonald’s deplete our nutrient-rich soil by harmful industrial agricultural practices to feed factory-farmed beef and chicken laced with chemicals, steroids, hormones, pesticides, and antibiotics, all practices, policies, and principles leading to disease in humans, malformation, cancer, growth-disorders, imperfect immune systems, groundwater contamination, eutrophication in lakes and streams (increase in the concentration of chemical nutrients in ecosystems; a dense green bloom of cyanobacteria resulting in severe anoxia, reduction in water quality, harm to fish and animals: dead water), global warming, pandemic-diseases such as SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, H1N1, and whatever killer is coming next.  This is what they sell us; this is what we are buying.  When we support these companies, when we support poor business ethics destructive to our biosphere and our health we support destructive principles—anti-human principles.  What China is saying is that ‘China have no business-ethics; China have no principles—if you don’t like it—stay the F**k out!’

 But even more worrying is the fact that China is exporting these non-principles of anti-humanism to the world, expanding its financial and industrial empire all over the globe.  So when the Chinese continually reiterate—“Why do fear China?”  I say you have almost 2 billion people.  I say you don’t believe in individual freedom.  You don’t believe in community-freedom.  You do not believe in humanistic principles (at least in a business sense).  You have none (in a business sense).  You do not care about human health, rights, or self-determination.  You do not show any empathy to the human race.  Harsh as it may sound—actions speak much louder than words—empty rhetoric and your words match your actions (in a business sense), at least part of the time: the other times it’s just lip-service (they do not regulate industries in the protection of the environment, or regulate themselves; quite the contrary).

The other worrying thing is that China increasing feels it doesn’t have to listen to or compromise with the International community—it sees itself as an emergent superpower, an empire.  In fact this has been its long history, one defined by ethnocentrism and extreme nationalism, pride and prejudice.  If a Chinese actress performs in a Japanese film, she is banished from public favor and ‘Han-Chinese nationality/race’, at least in their minds and their words.  She is hated, almost ravenously.  And the Chinese regime demonstrates its arrogance and haughty pride when it declares—if you don’t like it, well, so what—other counties will bend a knee and pay tribute to anti-human principles if you do not.  Should we do business with a country that purports not to have business-ethics and principles? I hope other companies follow Google’s’ path.  Do no evil.

 China’s ceiling in context:

 For the last 30 years, China has been testing a new, inverted model: breakneck economic development while retaining strict limits on personal liberty. The Communist Party has wrenched the nation into the 21^st century. The hardware is certainly impressive—the maglev trains, shiny new airports, and modern skyscrapers. China has displaced the United States as the world’s largest car market and is about to surpass longtime rival Japan as the second-largest economy. Such growth has attracted American companies, which inevitably make a series of trade-offs when they decide to head east. They accept local joint-venture partners and the risk of intellectual property theft, and learn to negotiate a commercial culture in which the government may arrest and jail a key executive, as happened with Australian mining giant Rio Tinto. As a group, the Fortune 500 have overlooked or come to terms with the lack of political freedom. After all, General Motors and KFC are in the business of selling stuff, not principles. And they have to be in China because that’s where the action is. “If you don’t come to the Chinese markets, other countries will,” said Zheng Zeguang,

 Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy.

 Daniel Gross also notes that “[Google] sells access to information. Its business model requires freedom of linking, surfing, and expression. And that’s why it, along with other media and New Economy companies, hasn’t done well in China.”

 I disagree with him.  Here’s why.  Google did pretty well in China and its share of the market would have kept growing dramatically.  There are a lot of English learners in China—more than any place in the world— and “Our China” hungry for outside information.  Even though a considerable amount of information—critical of the totalitarian regime—is censored and blocked, there is still a wealth of cultural, educational, entertainment, infotainment, and news available on Google that many Chinese citizens, students, and teachers desire.  But most Chinese will also use Baidu because it has a format—while distasteful to me—they are more comfortable with [including an overload of flashing advertisements]. Things Chinese youth like.  And the engine is scripted in Chinese.  Google can be accessed in Chinese as well, but for a nationalistic, country with a growing pride, they sometimes prefer Chinese products—can anyone blame them?  In addition, the centralized State-power heavily subsidizes and assists domestic business.  One can’t really blame them for that either, less one throws rocks at glass houses.  Though, it is a wee-bit unfair, considering they expect American and European domestic markets to be completely open to them, while they throw up obstacles to the West at every turn.  And they endorse, and no doubt, subsidize cyber espionage and asymmetrical warfare.  Right or wrong, why should Google or any other company subject themselves to harassment, and/or practice harmful business ethics and non-principles at the same time—just for profit and selling stuff? 

 I don’t want to decouple the economy.  I don’t want to completely stop business and trade with China.  I just think that China should behave responsibly in the business world, in the consumer world, and with humanity in general, Chinese citizens and world citizens alike.  I think that America and other countries should behave in equally responsible ways.  And above all, I think all commercial and non-commercial industries need to practice humanistic business ethics—including policies that are open to and support principles of self-determination and free information.  So, I’d like to coin a new phrase, a new proverb.  Be like Google.

 Daniel Gross writes:  “Google’s software engineers became billionaires by devising a democratic algorithm.  China, too, is led by engineers, but civil engineers. They believe the nation is getting richer precisely because they are keeping democratic tendencies in check.”

 At the heart of this controversy is the very future of the world.  Do we continue to practice and nourish democratic principles or do we move backwards toward China’s principles—fascism, totalitarianism, martial law, jealously guarding/wielding power used to manipulate the public, control the public, and incarcerate imagination?

  Be like Google.