China vs. Western companies: Best defense is a strong offense

[LeveragedBuyout]

The Century of Humiliation was our own fault for being weak. And it is a lesson we cannot forget.

That's fairly straightforward, and I sympathize with that viewpoint.

And I think if you start talking to your Chinese colleagues about politics, you may find they share similar opinions. It's just not something that often comes up in regular polite conversation.

Gauging opinions on an internet forum is a very difficult thing, and such opinions may not necessarily follow the mainstream view, or more importantly government policy.

I have spoken to my colleagues about some of these issues, in a tangential way (why break our rapport by introducing politics?), but they seem as generally optimistic as I am, and whatever the viewpoints here, Chinese government policy seems far more pragmatic (at least towards the US) than what is called for by the internet users. There are exceptions, but the general trend of convergence is there. To be honest, I regard you and Edison Chen among such pragmatic thinkers--we don't always agree, but our disagreements are reasonable.

Chinese ethics and culture is very much rooted in Confucianism.

And Confucian societies (Chinese/Japanese/Korean/etc.) generally have very low crime rates compared to other countries.

My city for example (HK) has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, next to Japan.

As for the member @Genesis, he says he was brought up on Western culture and Western ideas. So maybe he is trying to combine the Eastern and Western viewpoints?

What is it about Confucian ethics that accounts for this, do you think, and why does it seem more effective than the Western ethical system? Perhaps that's an issue for another thread.

China's government policy does not follow zero-sum logic in any case. After all, America and Japan are two of our largest trading partners.

Indeed, it is this dichotomy that confuses me. There are problems (IP, disagreements over the territorial issues), but the overall relationship seems to work rather well. If we did not have some measure of accommodation towards each other, we would have never become so entwined (and at this point, inseparable) economically.

 

[Genesis]

This is a struggle for me. Because most Chinese I have dealt with are internationally-oriented, some of the thoughts and justifications expressed here have been surprising and disconcerting. The Chinese business-people I know in real life are nothing like the users here, but one wonders which population is truly representative of Chinese thought. I have always preferred to think that my pragmatic and open-minded Chinese colleagues were good ambassadors for China, but it's possible that the zero-sum nationalists here are more representative of reality.

The overarching theme appears to be that "might makes right." If China is not stopped, that is proof of China's righteousness, whether it's stealing IP or expanding into others' territory. And yet, when that principle was applied against China, it produced the "century of humiliation," a grievance which the Chinese here nurture in strange ways, i.e. "Europe and Japan humiliated us, so we need to humiliate the United States." I'm sure there's a missing step, but I haven't discovered it, yet. Again, it's surprising that two centuries of weakness in 5,000 years of strength can leave such an impact on the Chinese psyche, especially given their justified pride in their historical impact and longevity. In any case, we have "might makes right," with the corollary, "except when applied against China."

In addition, it's difficult to understand how Chinese society holds itself together with this kind of zero-sum, raw-power mindset. What prevents people in Chinese society from murdering or stealing from each other, simply because they can? I realize now that I need to start studying Chinese ethics to see if I can find the answer to this, because the idea of unity as a nation seems to be in direct conflict with the idea of maximizing one's own power at the expense of everyone else, as applied internationally. (@Chinese-Dragon @Edison Chen Do you have any suggestions for English-language papers, articles, or case studies that might shed light on this and help me understand the issues involved? I would appreciate any guidance.)

Finally, I am always taken aback by what I term China's "aggressive inferiority complex," in the sense that China must always remind the rest of the world how strong it is, while simultaneously proclaiming its own weakness, thus justifying further aggressiveness as a defensive measure. Genesis has explicitly said that under this philosophy, China will be able to justify any action it has taken, or will take, ad infinitum. Chinese-Dragon pointed out how hard the Chinese government worked to suppress data showing China's rise in order to give it space for maneuver. This seems schizophrenic (to the rest of the world, "do you believe me, or your lying eyes?"), but again, the answer may lie in further study of Chinese culture and ethics.

To your point about the Chinese Manifest Destiny, I am starting to notice similarities between the Chinese thought process and the Muslim thought process with regards to Islam as it is today vs. Islam at its maximum historical reach. Again, further study is necessary to develop this idea, but it's interesting how PDF provides the opportunity to contrast these ideas against each other in real time.

If we were to get down to it, I actually agree more with the democrat mind set than the republican ones. Helping the weaker man, tolerance for different people, more freedom in human expression, and etc.

To be honest, I didn't initially like the idea of war, I mean I thought it was a good read and pretty cool in the stories, and history books, but the fact of the matter is, with today's internet, the devastating effects of war is apparent even to America the perpetual winner.

But, as I grew older, this mind set changed, it was simple really, America has way too much power, and it can do too much to anybody.

While you may agree or not, America's actions against Russia was a clear demonstration, of American "superiority" mindset. You didn't even hold back against a nation like Russia. Crushing Russia's economy if successful it would in fact destroy the lives of ordinary civilians that had nothing to do with politics.

Even today, the embargo for 1989 is still held against us, I'm not defending it, if anything I am against the withholding of this information, and anything related to this.

Read your own news, see the phrases they use. "China needs to learn the costs." "China is destabilizing." "China shouldn't be rewarded." "US needs to be aggressive against China." "US needs to show China we mean business."

As to US commenters, "China needs to be wiped out." "Boycott Chinese garbage." "China needs to be taught a lesson." "Kill all Chinese people."

No I think relatively we are in fact quite polite, no?

Oh yea, what about the election, it was as if China was Hitler, and they two candidates were trying to stop us from doing the holocausts.


We don't use history to justify what we do, we have a different interpretation of what it means. China was like Rome, Rome never claimed the Mediterranean, but it was hers non the less. Much is the same with us, through out our history we never needed to claim anything, it was ours because nobody can stop us, or even wanted to try.

As to cyber attacks and IPs, US surveillance planes can monitor Chinese ships and subs and more, but w ecan't do the same due to technical and other reasons. So in essence America has legalized it's own way of spying on us, without us having the same ability.

The objective is the same, yet we are the villain. Oh and let's not forget, America has justified it's own spying even in cyber space as a national security issue. What do you think ours was a fun day in the park? I can tell you hacking is extremely tedious and tiring not to mention boring. It's not something people do for fun.


Like what I listed above, to take away the US power over is, is as good a reason as any, at least to me. Tell the truth, would you feel completely comfortable without the US having any power over us? And I'm not even taking about power over you.

 

[Aepsilons]

The Century of Humiliation was our own fault for being weak. And it is a lesson we cannot forget.
And I think if you start talking to your Chinese colleagues about politics, you may find they share similar opinions. It's just not something that often comes up in regular polite conversation.
Gauging opinions on an internet forum is a very difficult thing, and such opinions may not necessarily follow the mainstream view, or more importantly government policy.

If my understanding of native Japanese culture give me a visage of Chinese culture, it is this -- it takes time -- after social etiquette rituals -- before the topic of politics is discussed. And when it is initiated, it may be rather spirited in form.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

If we were to get down to it, I actually agree more with the democrat mind set than the republican ones. Helping the weaker man, tolerance for different people, more freedom in human expression, and etc.

To be honest, I didn't initially like the idea of war, I mean I thought it was a good read and pretty cool in the stories, and history books, but the fact of the matter is, with today's internet, the devastating effects of war is apparent even to America the perpetual winner.

But, as I grew older, this mind set changed, it was simple really, America has way too much power, and it can do too much to anybody.

While you may agree or not, America's actions against Russia was a clear demonstration, of American "superiority" mindset. You didn't even hold back against a nation like Russia. Crushing Russia's economy if successful it would in fact destroy the lives of ordinary civilians that had nothing to do with politics.

Even today, the embargo for 1989 is still held against us, I'm not defending it, if anything I am against the withholding of this information, and anything related to this.

Read your own news, see the phrases they use. "China needs to learn the costs." "China is destabilizing." "China shouldn't be rewarded." "US needs to be aggressive against China." "US needs to show China we mean business."

As to US commenters, "China needs to be wiped out." "Boycott Chinese garbage." "China needs to be taught a lesson." "Kill all Chinese people."

No I think relatively we are in fact quite polite, no?

Oh yea, what about the election, it was as if China was Hitler, and they two candidates were trying to stop us from doing the holocausts.


We don't use history to justify what we do, we have a different interpretation of what it means. China was like Rome, Rome never claimed the Mediterranean, but it was hers non the less. Much is the same with us, through out our history we never needed to claim anything, it was ours because nobody can stop us, or even wanted to try.

As to cyber attacks and IPs, US surveillance planes can monitor Chinese ships and subs and more, but w ecan't do the same due to technical and other reasons. So in essence America has legalized it's own way of spying on us, without us having the same ability.

The objective is the same, yet we are the villain. Oh and let's not forget, America has justified it's own spying even in cyber space as a national security issue. What do you think ours was a fun day in the park? I can tell you hacking is extremely tedious and tiring not to mention boring. It's not something people do for fun.


Like what I listed above, to take away the US power over is, is as good a reason as any, at least to me. Tell the truth, would you feel completely comfortable without the US having any power over us? And I'm not even taking about power over you.

You make a very well-reasoned case. It's easy to overlook the NSA issues, the intelligence gathering flights, the weapons embargo, etc. and only notice Chinese violations. Thank you for reminding me of these points, and re-framing it from a different perspective. In a sense, despite your leaning towards the Democratic viewpoint, I actually think your viewpoint is more on the libertarian-conservative side of the spectrum: just leave us alone to live life as we want. Writ large, that means non-interference with Chinese affairs. What we need to do is learn how to be as hands-off as possible with each other, while at the same time working to reduce frictions along our bordering spheres of influence. It will take some time, but we'll get there.

 

[Genesis]

To be optimistic, yes. I do believe that the Chinese counterpart will eventually converge towards the Western Standard, so long as the Western partners , as well as Japanese partners, remind the Chinese of our bilateral trade relations. There needs to be emphasis , perhaps through lobbying, to encourage the Chinese government to adopt the ethicality of their decisions. A trade war is counterproductive to their (Chinese) interests as well as to the investors. The situation we're placed in now is finding the middle ground. It remains to be seen if this is possible. Or if the Chinese are willing to converge towards the Western Standards. There is also a possibility that they will be unwilling to comply.

Interesting times we live in tho.

Before we get into the right or wrong of this. Who's tax dollars are at work for Chinese leadership. If something is beneficial, why would the Chinese leadership not do it? Just to spite US and Japan? Doesn't sound likely, or actions from a person over 5.

My point is, why should Chinese leadership think about how Japan or US views them, and not about the benefits of the Chinese people and nation.

The problem I have with your wording is the word comply, to go with a few others, make your point about the benefits of this arrangement, not that we either do it or die.

You make a very well-reasoned case. It's easy to overlook the NSA issues, the intelligence gathering flights, the weapons embargo, etc. and only notice Chinese violations. Thank you for reminding me of these points, and re-framing it from a different perspective. In a sense, despite your leaning towards the Democratic viewpoint, I actually think your viewpoint is more on the libertarian-conservative side of the spectrum: just leave us alone to live life as we want. Writ large, that means non-interference with Chinese affairs. What we need to do is learn how to be as hands-off as possible with each other, while at the same time working to reduce frictions along our bordering spheres of influence. It will take some time, but we'll get there.

The best way is for America to actually see us as an equal, which we more or less will be. A lot of Chinese like the western mindset, and as do I, I may live in China now and again, but Canada is really my home. I feel far more at home there.

America is afraid of the losing of the liberal order, but it doesn't have to be, China is different from the Soviets, or the Nazis. We seek just a equal voice at the table. We don't want allies, and we don't want slaves, we want recognition.

The thing that is making some Chinese Zero Sum is the fact, US has made China the evil empire. We have no place in your empire.

You been to China I'm thinking, do you really feel like the government's eye is always on you, and you have no freedom?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

You been to China I'm thinking, do you really feel like the government's eye is always on you, and you have no freedom?

Not today, no. Today, when I visit China, it feels just like any other first world country, except more crowded and louder (no offense intended). But when I visited China in the early 1990s, there was literally a government minder who followed me wherever I went to see what I was doing, and to make sure I didn't say the "wrong" things to common Chinese citizens, or elicit the "wrong" responses from them. I won't deny that left a lasting, and perhaps unfair, impression on me. Of course, this was not long after Tiananmen Square, which I have also admitted has left a powerful and lasting impression on me. Nothing is as painful as disappointment--to have one's hopes soar so high ("they're just like us after all!") to fall so low ("how could they do that? they'll never be like us!") As I've aged, and seen modern China age with me, I've now returned to a more nuanced and moderate view.

 

[Genesis]

Not today, no. Today, when I visit China, it feels just like any other first world country, except more crowded and louder (no offense intended). But when I visited China in the early 1990s, there was literally a government minder who followed me wherever I went to see what I was doing, and to make sure I didn't say the "wrong" things to common Chinese citizens, or elicit the "wrong" responses from them. I won't deny that left a lasting, and perhaps unfair, impression on me. Of course, this was not long after Tiananmen Square, which I have also admitted has left a powerful and lasting impression on me. Nothing is as painful as disappointment--to have ones hopes soar so high ("they're just like us after all!") to fall so low ("how could they do that? they'll never be like us!") As I've aged, and seen modern China age with me, I've now returned to a more nuanced and moderate view.

Well that's in the past now. You think America can bring the good with the bad? Can America paint China as a developing country that needs time, rather than a evil dude who smashes people for fun.

This is really putting yourself into a corner, cause it limits the negotiations.

Giving China more responsibility and more roles looks like appeasement rather than the natural evolution of things. They are essentially the same thing, just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Aepsilons]

Before we get into the right or wrong of this. Who's tax dollars are at work for Chinese leadership. If something is beneficial, why would the Chinese leadership not do it? Just to spite US and Japan? Doesn't sound likely, or actions from a person over 5.
My point is, why should Chinese leadership think about how Japan or US views them, and not about the benefits of the Chinese people and nation.
The problem I have with your wording is the word comply, to go with a few others, make your point about the benefits of this arrangement, not that we either do it or die.

@Genesis,


One thing that has to be addressed is the importance of corporate social responsibility [CSR]. This concept originated in the west, and is a term that has been discussed worldwide and developed, resulting in a wide array of definitions, concepts and comments. There is a universally accepted definition of CSR – it is a business organization’s configuration of the principles of social responsibility, process of social responsiveness, and policies, programs and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationship. There are also various approaches to CSR definitions such as the shareholder approach, which defines the social responsibility of businesses as to increase its profits. Then there is the stakeholder approach, which emphasizes the organizations are not only accountable to their shareholders but should also balance the interests of their other stakeholders, who can influence or be influenced by the organizational activities.

Since CSR has become a core aspect in business practices in responding to many critical issues, such as human rights, labor rights, environmental and sustainable development, stakeholder relationships and poverty. Countries such as UK, the US and Japan are the leading contributors to CSR thinking and practice. China is becoming a critical player in CSR, but CSR practices and concepts in China are obviously still in their infancy. In practice, the CSR movement in China started in the mid 1990s. Multinationals brought western CSR into the Chinese market during the “anti-sweatshop campaign” which opposed the unacceptable conditions in the supply chain in developing countries.

Chinese enterprises only began to passively accept these standards, regulations, and codes of conduct relating to working conditions, working rights, health and safety issues and wage conditions because their purchasers required them to do so. The issue here is that since CSR is a western conception, it is rather difficult to be applied in Chinese society and culture because of the Chinese reality. Corporate disclosure and reporting in China are still in its inception and mainly focused on financial performance rather than social, environmental issue – to this is the issue of ethicality.

But in my opinion, I don’t think that the Chinese will be that resistant to adoption of this concept since there are instances of similar concepts as recorded in ancient Chinese text. CSR can be related to the responsible business concept in China which can be traced back 2500 years ago to Zi Gong who has been regarded as the originator of the “Confucian Trader”. He applied the Confucian virtue of “righteousness – yi” and “sincerity – xin” to his businesses, pursuing a harmonious and responsible business relationship. Another responsible aspect of his business is that he utilized his wealth to help scholars and the poor. You see there is an example of Confucian theory being applied in the business sense. The pursue of profits with integrity and commitment to the community’s prosperity. In this regard, I believe that the “Yi” and “Xin” can be realized when Chinese government realizes the exigencies that lay before it and to coordinate efforts with Western as well as Japanese partners, which in this case make up the "economic , corporate community".




Sincerely I Remain,
@Nihonjin1051

 

[gambit]

This is a struggle for me. Because most Chinese I have dealt with are internationally-oriented, some of the thoughts and justifications expressed here have been surprising and disconcerting. The Chinese business-people I know in real life are nothing like the users here, but one wonders which population is truly representative of Chinese thought. I have always preferred to think that my pragmatic and open-minded Chinese colleagues were good ambassadors for China, but it's possible that the zero-sum nationalists here are more representative of reality.

Businesses are unofficial but obvious ambassadors for any country. The military is both official and obvious. As such, ambassadors are obligated to present the best possible faces for their countries. As public figures they are accountable for their behaviors. The military have its own internal mechanisms for dealing with miscreants who put it in a bad publicity light. Not so severe for businesses but for those who behaves badly, they can at least face serious moral consequences from fellow businesses and the responsible governments.

Anonymous Internet voices faces no levels of accountability, at least not officially.

The oft heard about '50-cent army' from China is not a myth. When the Chinese government realized that it cannot police public opinions despite their efforts to control said opinions, it created a specialized branch of Internet agents called 'ushers of public opinions' and each agent is paid 1/2 yuan, roughly 50 cents, for each time they attempt to steer a discussion, whether it is to deflect attention away from China's actions or to justify them. They are not to reveal that they are paid agents of the Chinese government.

Because they are anonymous, anything they say in any discussion, be it in participation among Chinese or foreigners, like this place, cannot be trace back to the Chinese government to be representative of the Chinese government in any degree, so they are free to express their opinions in ways ordinary Chinese cannot. They can even criticize the Chinese government, although for those of us who grew up with the freedom and experience in societies where criticisms of the government is routine and open, we can easily recognize these criticisms of the Chinese government as not serious. The criticisms are shallow and fleeting in the sense that soon enough one of these guys will bring up a justification or a deflection away from what seemingly was a legitimate criticism.

I have never seen the movie The Truman Show but I do know of the movie's premise, so when watching the Chinese members here debate among themselves, that is what it felt like with the exception that unlike Truman, the Chinese members know exactly they are putting on a show.

The bulk of the Chinese population is still too busy trying to hang on to the speeding train that is 'modern China' to be among these 'zero-sum nationalists', as you called the Chinese members here. Am willing to guess that the Chinese members here are reasonably sophisticated urbanites willing to partner their nationalism with what the Chinese government want.

The overarching theme appears to be that "might makes right." If China is not stopped, that is proof of China's righteousness, whether it's stealing IP or expanding into others' territory. And yet, when that principle was applied against China, it produced the "century of humiliation," a grievance which the Chinese here nurture in strange ways, i.e. "Europe and Japan humiliated us, so we need to humiliate the United States." I'm sure there's a missing step, but I haven't discovered it, yet. Again, it's surprising that two centuries of weakness in 5,000 years of strength can leave such an impact on the Chinese psyche, especially given their justified pride in their historical impact and longevity. In any case, we have "might makes right," with the corollary, "except when applied against China."

It would be nice if past rights can be used to remind someone of a once successful partnership. The US never had any colonial interests on mainland China when the Europeans were ruthlessly exploiting the Chinese, then the US defended China against Imperial Japan in WW II. These were not merely dismissed but effectively erased by a communist China who fellowshipped with the Soviet Union in an attempt to globalized Marxism. This is essentially pay-back for the US who stood against Marxism/communism expansion during the Cold War.

I see what happened in the Cold War and after as China saw herself being serially humiliated by the US. China was contained in Asia and no matter what the Chinese members here may say about the Vietnam War, that was a defeat for China as standard bearer for communism in Asia because it showed that China could be restrained. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed, ignobly and spectacularly, China was left standing bereft of an ideological ally, no matter how uneasy that alliance was at that time, and befuddled as on what to do next. And when China finally figured out on what to do next, it was humiliatingly to practice what America have always exported to be superior to what China believed.

The Chinese government needs to harness the latent nationalism in the bulk of the Chinese population who are currently too busy trying to (re)build China. In that long term and long duration venture, China needs a boogeyman and no one is better a target than America -- because of what America forced China to do and become. There will be no acknowledgement from the Chinese government that the adoption of some American ways WAS/IS better for China. The simple fact that the Chinese government had to publicly concede, with dire consequences from the alternatives, that the US was the better man, so to speak, is enough to compel the Chinese government to seek ways to humiliate US at any opportunity.

 

[xunzi]

The rest of the world is able to accomplish all of this by licensing the patents and paying royalties, and still managing a profit. Do you believe that the Chinese people are inferior, and unable to accomplish this as well? I don't, which is why this issue is so frustrating--it's unnecessary, and seems designed to provoke.

You don't need to get frustrated. We are not fortunate enough like Japan or any of your alllies which have free access to TOT, license patent, or royalties fee. You have a ban on that. Don't you remember our leader called on you to lift ban on high-end tech export to us but you kept a deaf ear? Ask yourself, why can't you treat us the same as you treat Japan. That's, my friend, is your answer.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

You don't need to get frustrated. We are not fortunate enough like Japan or any of your alllies which have free access to TOT, license patent, or royalties fee. You have a ban on that. Don't you remember our leader called on you to lift ban on high-end tech export to us but you kept a deaf ear? Ask yourself, why can't you treat us the same as you treat Japan. That's, my friend, is your answer.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not a great parallel. Japan didn't force foreign companies into JVs, and while Japanese products imitated Western products for a long time (e.g. the initial creations of Lexus), Japan never engaged in outright theft of IP, or at least not to the level of China. The United States trusts Japanese companies because they have proven that they will protect IP. That's why the US trusted Toshiba when it acquired Westinghouse, even though Westinghouse, by any definition, could be considered a national security crown jewel.

I am certain that when Chinese companies also prove that they respect IP, they will be given the same opportunities. Foxconn didn't grow into the powerhouse it is today by constantly stealing IP (and yes, I know it is is Taiwanese, but it's relevant because of its huge manufacturing base in China). It protected the IP of its customers, and became the go-to contractor because of it. The cause and effect of this relationship is straightforward, and I think China will get there at some point, but really, that's up to China, not us.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The rest of the world is able to accomplish all of this by licensing the patents and paying royalties, and still managing a profit. Do you believe that the Chinese people are inferior, and unable to accomplish this as well? I don't, which is why this issue is so frustrating--it's unnecessary, and seems designed to provoke.

The rest of the world has not been able to accomplish this. Only those where rich before have accomplished this. Every country that has significant IP today had significant IP back in 1900 and every country rich today was already rich in 1900. There are exactly 2 countries without natural resources that are developed (>1/2 US GDP per capita) today that were poor (<1/4 US GDP per capita) in 1900, and those are South Korea and Singapore. Every country poor in 1900 is still poor today. The reason South Korea and Singapore developed is because South Korea received significant foreign aid amounting to up to 74% of total investment in South Korea from 1953 to 1960, and Singapore recruits foreign corporations; it does not have much native intellectual property.

For South Korean information, see page 12: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4063.pdf

China has none of these luxuries. If it were not for Chinese creativity, the willingness to have real learning and innovation (not just within the box you set) and sheer tenacity, we would end up like India - a country with so much potential that restricts itself by obeying foreign norms designed to keep them down.

I am certain that when Chinese companies also prove that they respect IP, they will be given the same opportunities. Foxconn didn't grow into the powerhouse it is today by constantly stealing IP (and yes, I know it is is Taiwanese, but it's relevant because of its huge manufacturing base in China). It protected the IP of its customers, and became the go-to contractor because of it. The cause and effect of this relationship is straightforward, and I think China will get there at some point, but really, that's up to China, not us.

Foxconn is a great example. It has little native technology and is just a contract manufacturer. It will never build a global brand. Its competitive point is price, not innovation. It is not irreplacable and its strengths are organizational, not technological. Technological innovators are Huawei, ZTE, SMIC, etc.

Chinese companies will never be given the same opportunities in the US. Huawei is a top 5 innovator in telecommunications (measured by WIPO patents) and the largest company in the market, and it has actively given up the US market because the company realized it would not receive fair treatment.

 

[Genesis]

Businesses are unofficial but obvious ambassadors for any country. The military is both official and obvious. As such, ambassadors are obligated to present the best possible faces for their countries. As public figures they are accountable for their behaviors. The military have its own internal mechanisms for dealing with miscreants who put it in a bad publicity light. Not so severe for businesses but for those who behaves badly, they can at least face serious moral consequences from fellow businesses and the responsible governments.

Anonymous Internet voices faces no levels of accountability, at least not officially.

The oft heard about '50-cent army' from China is not a myth. When the Chinese government realized that it cannot police public opinions despite their efforts to control said opinions, it created a specialized branch of Internet agents called 'ushers of public opinions' and each agent is paid 1/2 yuan, roughly 50 cents, for each time they attempt to steer a discussion, whether it is to deflect attention away from China's actions or to justify them. They are not to reveal that they are paid agents of the Chinese government.

Because they are anonymous, anything they say in any discussion, be it in participation among Chinese or foreigners, like this place, cannot be trace back to the Chinese government to be representative of the Chinese government in any degree, so they are free to express their opinions in ways ordinary Chinese cannot. They can even criticize the Chinese government, although for those of us who grew up with the freedom and experience in societies where criticisms of the government is routine and open, we can easily recognize these criticisms of the Chinese government as not serious. The criticisms are shallow and fleeting in the sense that soon enough one of these guys will bring up a justification or a deflection away from what seemingly was a legitimate criticism.

I have never seen the movie The Truman Show but I do know of the movie's premise, so when watching the Chinese members here debate among themselves, that is what it felt like with the exception that unlike Truman, the Chinese members know exactly they are putting on a show.

The bulk of the Chinese population is still too busy trying to hang on to the speeding train that is 'modern China' to be among these 'zero-sum nationalists', as you called the Chinese members here. Am willing to guess that the Chinese members here are reasonably sophisticated urbanites willing to partner their nationalism with what the Chinese government want.


It would be nice if past rights can be used to remind someone of a once successful partnership. The US never had any colonial interests on mainland China when the Europeans were ruthlessly exploiting the Chinese, then the US defended China against Imperial Japan in WW II. These were not merely dismissed but effectively erased by a communist China who fellowshipped with the Soviet Union in an attempt to globalized Marxism. This is essentially pay-back for the US who stood against Marxism/communism expansion during the Cold War.

I see what happened in the Cold War and after as China saw herself being serially humiliated by the US. China was contained in Asia and no matter what the Chinese members here may say about the Vietnam War, that was a defeat for China as standard bearer for communism in Asia because it showed that China could be restrained. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed, ignobly and spectacularly, China was left standing bereft of an ideological ally, no matter how uneasy that alliance was at that time, and befuddled as on what to do next. And when China finally figured out on what to do next, it was humiliatingly to practice what America have always exported to be superior to what China believed.

The Chinese government needs to harness the latent nationalism in the bulk of the Chinese population who are currently too busy trying to (re)build China. In that long term and long duration venture, China needs a boogeyman and no one is better a target than America -- because of what America forced China to do and become. There will be no acknowledgement from the Chinese government that the adoption of some American ways WAS/IS better for China. The simple fact that the Chinese government had to publicly concede, with dire consequences from the alternatives, that the US was the better man, so to speak, is enough to compel the Chinese government to seek ways to humiliate US at any opportunity.

You have obviously never been on a Chinese forum or Weibo, see we can hate just as much as you guys can, on domestic issues.

I thought you are American, I guess I was wrong, the American way is independence and freedom of action, it's not about the greater good. If it was about that America would be very different.

You just said it yourself, what America has forced China to do, it doesn't matter if it's better or not, and let's face it, save for a brief 25 year period, we were just as capitalist as anyone in the world. That's why it was so easy for us to go back to it.

Then you mention Vietnam war, you also want to say why we were defeated to use your words. I mean we caused more damage, but strategically, we didn't achieve anything much. I only mentioned it cause you said China can be restrained, but used this as an example, why don't you mention the reasons for it and whether it still applies today.

@Genesis,


One thing that has to be addressed is the importance of corporate social responsibility [CSR]. This concept originated in the west, and is a term that has been discussed worldwide and developed, resulting in a wide array of definitions, concepts and comments. There is a universally accepted definition of CSR – it is a business organization’s configuration of the principles of social responsibility, process of social responsiveness, and policies, programs and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationship. There are also various approaches to CSR definitions such as the shareholder approach, which defines the social responsibility of businesses as to increase its profits. Then there is the stakeholder approach, which emphasizes the organizations are not only accountable to their shareholders but should also balance the interests of their other stakeholders, who can influence or be influenced by the organizational activities.

Since CSR has become a core aspect in business practices in responding to many critical issues, such as human rights, labor rights, environmental and sustainable development, stakeholder relationships and poverty. Countries such as UK, the US and Japan are the leading contributors to CSR thinking and practice. China is becoming a critical player in CSR, but CSR practices and concepts in China are obviously still in their infancy. In practice, the CSR movement in China started in the mid 1990s. Multinationals brought western CSR into the Chinese market during the “anti-sweatshop campaign” which opposed the unacceptable conditions in the supply chain in developing countries.

Chinese enterprises only began to passively accept these standards, regulations, and codes of conduct relating to working conditions, working rights, health and safety issues and wage conditions because their purchasers required them to do so. The issue here is that since CSR is a western conception, it is rather difficult to be applied in Chinese society and culture because of the Chinese reality. Corporate disclosure and reporting in China are still in its inception and mainly focused on financial performance rather than social, environmental issue – to this is the issue of ethicality.

But in my opinion, I don’t think that the Chinese will be that resistant to adoption of this concept since there are instances of similar concepts as recorded in ancient Chinese text. CSR can be related to the responsible business concept in China which can be traced back 2500 years ago to Zi Gong who has been regarded as the originator of the “Confucian Trader”. He applied the Confucian virtue of “righteousness – yi” and “sincerity – xin” to his businesses, pursuing a harmonious and responsible business relationship. Another responsible aspect of his business is that he utilized his wealth to help scholars and the poor. You see there is an example of Confucian theory being applied in the business sense. The pursue of profits with integrity and commitment to the community’s prosperity. In this regard, I believe that the “Yi” and “Xin” can be realized when Chinese government realizes the exigencies that lay before it and to coordinate efforts with Western as well as Japanese partners, which in this case make up the "economic , corporate community".




Sincerely I Remain,
@Nihonjin1051

hmmm, not the point I was talking about. I'll keep it simple, do you go to a meeting for cooperation and say you must comply, and we must show you the costs?

 

[gambit]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not a great parallel. Japan didn't force foreign companies into JVs, and while Japanese products imitated Western products for a long time (e.g. the initial creations of Lexus), Japan never engaged in outright theft of IP, or at least not to the level of China. The United States trusts Japanese companies, because they have proven that they will protect IP. That's why the US trusted Toshiba when it acquired Westinghouse, even though Westinghouse, by any definition, could be considered a national security crown jewel.

I am old enough to remember the early Honda motorcycle adverts in the US, in print and TV. The ads were blatant: 'You meet the nicest people on a Honda.' Implying thugs rides H/Ds. It was simple and brilliantly done. And Honda took off in America.

 

[Aepsilons]

hmmm, not the point I was talking about. I'll keep it simple, do you go to a meeting for cooperation and say you must comply, and we must show you the costs?

I'm afraid business and corporate culture -- which I drew reference to CSR -- isn't as simplistic as that. What is emphasized , however, is that there needs to be an understanding between partners to the level that would be considered fair for both parties. There are no threats being implied by multinationals in China, it is the other way around. I would encourage you to review peer reviewed journal articles reflecting this phenomena. It would do you good to build a realistic and comprehensive view.