[meowface]

Is it? If the American government were doing this, I would think the exact same thing. And America has in fact done similar things many times in the past.

Of course it's PR. It's always PR, probably regardless of what superpower's government is involved. The only difference here is that the Chinese government has more control over and knowledge of what private citizens are doing, so it can be difficult to disentangle private and governmental action.

[antonvs]

Do you feel the same way about Bill Gates' philanthropic work?

Is what Gates does also "always PR"?

Both of these men could afford to retire to a private island (or chain of islands) and never be heard from again. You think they do what they do primarily for PR reasons?

[meowface]

No. I would if I thought Bill Gates represented the US government, but I don't think he does.

The problem here is it's so hard to separate private and governmental action in China. Jack Ma may not have even been able to do this without their approval or prodding, possibly. Maybe he did, but there's no good way to know. Most other large countries don't have such powerful and expansive governments.

This is about geopolitics, not philanthropy. I think most philanthropists aren't doing things for PR, and for the ones who are, it's probably a minor, extra motive. But all bets are off when the philanthropist may be an ultra-powerful nation-state.

[scotty79]

This "us vs them" mentality with strong whiff of paranoia. Conceiving ulterior motive and talking as if that was the most important motive. Somehow more true than all other parallel motives. I don't see this kind of thinking much out of US and perhaps Russia. Maybe it's taint of cold war. Maybe it runs even deeper in the culture.

[meowface]

I would think the same if it were the US or Russian government. Why do you think the US invested so much into feeding East Germany? It was to save lives, to regrow an economy, and for PR against the Soviets.

I'm a massive conspiracy theory skeptic and spend an inordinate amount of time trying to debunk them, but this is just how geopolitics work, have always worked, and will likely still work for centuries or millennia to come. Many actions have multiple motives.

Also, I'm just saying it's a possibility. It's just hard to know since it's so hard to separate government and private activities in such a place.

[scotty79]

> Many actions have multiple motives.

That's what I'm saying. And this specific way of thinking is focusing on the worst of the motives and treating them as if they were the main motives, the most important motives, the most worthwhile motives to observe and point out, maybe the only motives worth mentioning.

[meowface]

My original post:

>I have no doubt his intention really is to save lives, but a secondary motive is surely also PR. Perhaps the Chinese state had some role in this, as well. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I could see a possible benign conspiracy like them using Jack as a proxy to distribute these.

I said it was a secondary motive, and that it was a benign conspiracy theory. I only leaned this way due to the fact the outbreak originated in China and because Jack Ma may not have been able to do this without the approval of the government. That means it's fairly likely he either had to request approval, in which case the government may have approved for PR reasons, or it's possible they reached out to him and proposed or demanded it.

Even if it were the Chinese state doing it formally, I'd still say the primary motive is to save lives, even if there were also other motives. Like how the primary motive of the Belt and Road Initiative is to increase trade and uplift poor countries, but there are many other motives, as well. Again, this is the case for all large governments, not just China - the difference here is just the lack of separation between private and governmental action in China, which makes it difficult to tell to what extent this is Jack and to what extent this is the state. If it were somehow proven the state weren't involved in any way, then I would think it was more likely than not that Jack didn't have ulterior motives.

Either way, it's not something I care much about one or way the other. I wasn't the original person to say it was a power move - I just disagreed with the parent poster who suggested it being a global initiative made it less likely to be a power move. No matter his/their motives, it's very good he and/or the Chinese government are doing this.

[remarkEon]

>...so it can be difficult to disentangle private and governmental action.

It's near impossible to disentangle private and government[al] action in China. It's also not a uniquely American way to think about it. Every country uses private proxies where it makes sense in order to project power.