[Aqua]

Isn't it surprising that Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Blizzard and others don't express their deep regret and support the people of Hong Kong? If they really stood by their values they would act in the same way as they did by supporting the BLM movement. It's just another proof that they only did that to get press coverage for being "benevolent" and not because they genuinely supported the people. Disgraceful.

[arkades]

Did you at some point think that the corporate leadership of a massive for-profit organization was going to make a public statement that was anything other than the bare minimum lip service they were required to pay in order to weather the PR storm of the day, so that they could continue doing business?

The answer to that question is almost always "no," and certainly until proven otherwise. Complaining that these corporate PR statements are anything other than lip service is like complaining that the world isn't fair, or that everyone dies. Perhaps a sad truth, but one you should've figured out by the time you turned twelve.

Corollary: corporations are not hypocrites, either, because corporations don't hold beliefs. They make PR statements. Their belief is "I will say what I need to in order to be left in peace to maximize profits." Any corporate leader that doesn't hold to that will be replaced by someone that does, either proximally (by the board and shareholders) or ultimately (by one day landing on the wrong side of idealogy and getting outcompeted by organizations that weather the storms more nimbly.)

[Adverblessly]

I agree that this is the behaviour displayed by (almost?) all large corporations and thus that expecting that they will behave differently is irrational, in the sense that that expectation will always turn out to be false.

That said, I don't see why that means we should expect that behaviour in the sense that we should consider this the expected, correct, behvaiour from corporations.

Perhaps if everyone believed that moral and ethical behaviour from corporations should be the expectation and not just a fairytale for <12 year olds we'd actually see that behaviour in the world. If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.

[arkades]

> If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.

No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not. Holding them to a higher moral standard just changes the measure of "what is the minimum amount of signaling required?" Selection pressure is unyielding - values that don't affect survival ultimately don't matter, because however much you like it, it will be competed out of existence.

Nor could an organization exhibit actual morality, because an organization doesn't have continuity of thought or policy - flip a few board members, change an executive team, and the people whose judgement comprises "the company's judgement" just changed entirely. It would be like discussing the morality of a robot which regularly swapped the brain it contains.

You're making the same category error as the previous poster: describing "corporation" as a noun that has a characteristic known as "morality," and then lamenting the amount of "morality" we expect from it.

Morality is for people. Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality - they have regulatory constraints on profit-seeking avenues. Tricking people into thinking corporations have the former is a jedi mind trick: keep people focused on controlling corporations with the same social censure mechanisms that work on people means you're not focusing your time and effort on the mechanisms of control that would actually work on corporations.

It's like a red dragon walking around talking about oh, gosh, how much his sunburn hurts. He's immune to fire; put away the torches and focus on something that might actually work.

[tobtoh]

> If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.

>> No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not.

But if everyone condemned corporations (assuming that translates into consumers not purchasing their products), then that becomes the selection criteria impacting their profit.

So whilst your point that the corporations don't hold 'real' moral positions is fine, the OP would appear to be also correct in their assertion that condemnation will push a corporation to take a moral position (or pseudo-moral position if you want) and their expectations would eventually become real.

[clairity]

while you make some good points, you seem to be leaning too far into them.

we can have non-profit-seeking expectations (like morality) of corporations because it's made up of people, not robots, and the drivers of profit are (often) indirect and nonlinear. and it doesn't matter that corporations don't internalize moral behavior the same way an individual does. it gets internalized throughout the people in the corporations (stochastically, not uniformly). that's a fine outcome for the expectations we have.

social censure would be modeled as losing regard (brand value) for the corporation, and corps spend craploads of money keeping up their image because it affects profits. censure should lead to some loss of aggregate business, which does ultimately put profit pressure on the corporation.

maybe that's less effective compared to direct regulation, but social censure is immensely more accessible than regulation for most people and even most other businesses. maybe censure is not as good as regulation, but that's a claim that at least requires some rhetorical support. it's certainly better than nothing or a slim chance of proper regulation.

that said, we should do both, and more, to keep corporations--power structures--in line with what we as the people want (not the other way around). the balance is an unstable equilibrium and we need constant vigilance and pressure to maintain it favorably.

[WalterBright]

> Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality

Neither do democratic government institutions (they do whatever the political winds say), nor non-democratic institutions (which are run for the benefit of those in charge of it).

The implication that the removal of profit would result in moral, ethical, and altruistic behavior is not supported by evidence.

[Adverblessly]

> No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not. Holding them to a higher moral standard just changes the measure of "what is the minimum amount of signaling required?" Selection pressure is unyielding - values that don't affect survival ultimately don't matter, because however much you like it, it will be competed out of existence.

So if people were to apply selection pressure on organizations by condeming their actions and removing them from mainstream acceptance, leading to reduced profits (e.g. "Ewww, you're wearing Nike? Don't you know those are made by child laborers?!"), the optimal behaviour for them will be to exhibit a more moral behaviour.

In particular, this would be much better than the attitude I replied to of "Of course Nike are using child laborers, as a corporation that is just what they do.".

> Nor could an organization exhibit actual morality, because an organization doesn't have continuity of thought or policy - flip a few board members, change an executive team, and the people whose judgement comprises "the company's judgement" just changed entirely. It would be like discussing the morality of a robot which regularly swapped the brain it contains.

> You're making the same category error as the previous poster: describing "corporation" as a noun that has a characteristic known as "morality," and then lamenting the amount of "morality" we expect from it.

I agree that the behvaiour of an orgnization is an emergent property of the members of that organization and their culture, so it is hard to ascribe morals to the organization as a whole. However, I don't think it really matters what mechanism generates a good behaviour as much as the good behaviour itself. In my metaphorical example so far, if the Nike CEO literally hated children and wanted to work them to death but halted all child labor just to save profits, I'm still happy that the practice of child labor was stopped. Furthermore, if the Head of an organization was held liable for the actions of that organization (either legally or just socially), they would work to make sure the organization behaves in a way that makes them comfortable. If everyone in the world agreed that a certain behaviour was required of that organization, then that would include the members of that organization and itself would influence the behaviour internally.

> Morality is for people. Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality - they have regulatory constraints on profit-seeking avenues. Tricking people into thinking corporations have the former is a jedi mind trick: keep people focused on controlling corporations with the same social censure mechanisms that work on people means you're not focusing your time and effort on the mechanisms of control that would actually work on corporations.

Sure, applying regulatory constraints on organizations is also useful (though the same caveats you yourself mentioned still apply, e.g. a common failure in these regulatory constraints is that the risk-adjusted penalty the regulation sets is lower than the risk-adjusted profit, so the organization is still incentivied to break regulations). This regulation can be the result of public demand (in as much as the politicans writing it also respond to social pressure).

> It's like a red dragon walking around talking about oh, gosh, how much his sunburn hurts. He's immune to fire;

Heck, even if an organization says something without meaning it, that still has value. If 10,000 brands update their Facebook page to say "Black Lives Matter" but do nothing further about it (like donating to relevant causes, promoting black workers inside the company etc.) that still helps normalize and propagate the idea that "Black Lives Matter" and has some value of itself (though obviously much less value than actually acting about it).

[usefulcat]

I think that “a machine designed to produce profits” is a much better metaphor for a corporation than a person. Apart from profit, anything produced by a corporation is really just a side effect. This includes things like political lobbying, environmental damage, jobs, even products and services. This is so because if the company could make as much money without doing or making any of those things, then it would. And if it didn’t, then it would eventually be out competed but some other company.

[Fnoord]

> Complaining that these corporate PR statements are anything other than lip service is like complaining that the world isn't fair, or that everyone dies. Perhaps a sad truth, but one you should've figured out by the time you turned twelve.

Its not so much that you or I have not figured this out; it is something which apparently works because a significant group of people have not figured this out; they're falling for it.

[goatinaboat]

Did you at some point think that the corporate leadership of a massive for-profit organization was going to make a public statement that was anything other than the bare minimum lip service they were required to pay in order to weather the PR storm of the day, so that they could continue doing business?

It’s not just that. By encouraging civil unrest in the US/UK and continuing to funnel money to Chinese sweatshops these corporations are actively supporting the Chinese regime both in its foreign policy and its economy.

Remember the Apple 1984 ad? Now imagine the runner throwing handfuls of dollar bills at Big Brother instead.

[cal5k]

That ad was a neat PR trick, seeing as it seemed to make people forget that Apple is one of the most profitable companies in human existence. It's not a "revolutionary" company, it just makes really good products.

[aspenmayer]

They do more than others in the industry with their annual transparency reports, and they are working to end unfair working conditions in their operations, and in those of their partners such as Foxconn. I do agree that they could do more, but I haven’t even brought up their recycling programs yet. They have the largest burden to bear, as the world’s largest company, depending how you measure it, and so they can commensurately do more to identify the problems and work toward solutions. To say they are only making really good products is a bit harsh, as they are measurably doing more than their competition to make their profits ethically, while making those products.

[duskwuff]

> That ad was a neat PR trick, seeing as it seemed to make people forget that Apple is one of the most profitable companies in human existence.

That ad aired in 1984. Apple was nowhere near as profitable at the time as it is today.

[aiilns]

>corporations are not hypocrites, either, because corporations don't hold beliefs. They make PR statements.Their belief is "I will say what I need to in order to be left in peace to maximize profits."

This is the definition of a hypocrite. I see in your comments an attempt for seemingly logically sound conclusions that stem from unsubstantiated aphorisms. "Corporations don't hold beliefs", "Morality is for people" not corporations.

Just because a corporation is made up from a group of people doesn't magically make it unable to hold any values. I would argue that it does hold values, values that are shaped by the people working there and the society in which it operates: Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality because they are made up of profit-seeking people in a profit-seeking society.

I would expect your comment to be a prelude to why the capitalist model isn't working, why values are being eroded and eclipsed by the the need for profit, yet you stop short.

[pixelrevision]

What a wonderful world we’re building for ourselves

[arkades]

The world, for better or worse, will be built by the people in their private capacity, whether individually or acting in concert through government.

Complaining about for-profit institutions pursuing profit is, at best, a category error, and has nothing to do with our ability to shape the world except a childish inability to separate an organization represented by people from actual people.

It's like making a pool in your backyard and complaining it's a bad place to jog. That's not what it's for. Private for-profit entities aren't for public policy, or for moral leadership. They're for taking money and giving you widgets. If there's a manner in which their doing so runs contrary to desired public policy, that's a government and regulatory issue. That they've managed to somehow convince you they're "people"/"sentient" adequately enough for you to criticize their moral stance is an astounding success of marketing and branding. Because it takes a lot of marketing to convince people that widget-making is anything other than widget-making, for good or for ill.

[krisoft]

You are wrong. Complaining about anything, including for-profit institutions, is how people in their private capacity build up consensus and that's how they change things. How else do you think the "acting in concert through government" happens?

[dwaltrip]

I don’t think it is correct to say that for-profit orgs have absolutely no moral agency or responsibility. It is obviously different than that of individuals, but it very much exists.

I honestly can’t even imagine what it would mean for companies to have absolutely no moral responsibility. Wouldn’t they behave like gangs or mobsters? Or even more extreme?

[bostik]

It would look like democracy right now.

And no, that wasn't snark. I'm basically paraphrasing Alan Moore's statement that democracy is just another way of being ruled by the biggest mob.

[usefulcat]

If one wants to build a better world, surely an accurate understanding of the world as it currently exists is a prerequisite.

[jollofricepeas]

Corporations are people too.

Leaving this source and reference to Citizens United to hopefully help lift the conversation and help people understand the rights of corporations within the United States.

https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...

Do corporations have a deeper responsibility besides enriching shareholders?

[cardamomo]

> Corporations are people too.

I think it is more accurate to qualify this. Corporations have been ruled by the US Supreme Court to hold many of the same rights as people. It's also important to give that decision some context. Polls since Citizens United have shown a majority of people in the US oppose the Court's decision in that case. Just a couple I found quickly poking around:

- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg...

- https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4455238/campaignf...

[refurb]

Saying they support BLM costs them almost nothing and is pretty low risk (now that’s moved mainstream). I know my company quietly waited until it was clear nobody would bat an eye if they did a press release supporting BLM.

Hong Kong? That might actually require a bit of financial risk and negative publicity (at least in China). Now that real money is involved? “Our company believes the best way to support change in China is to do business there [...and keep our mouths shut].

[josteink]

> I know my company quietly waited until it was clear nobody would bat an eye if they did a press release supporting BLM.

It may have a vocal (majority?) support, but it’s still a very divisive issue.

It’s probably better to not raise any flag, unless you really mean it and genuinely want to support it.

[refurb]

The BLM movement has gotten to the point that if companies don’t make some statement of support they are risking negative PR.

[josteink]

So any BLM “support” you see these days, you might as well expect be the result of tyranny?

Interesting.

[refurb]

Huh? No, that’s not what I meant.

Companies prefer to not be in the news. So what they do is seek out the mainstream and align itself to it.

BLM was not mainstream 3 months ago, so companies remained quiet.

Now, not showing support for BLM runs the risk of unfavorable PR. So they put out a low risk statement.

[briefcomment]

I'm not sure BLM support is "mainstream". Home Depot hasn't said anything official about BLM to my knowledge, and you hear loud pro BLM people saying they should be boycotted [1], but I think they're doing fine. Their stock price is as good as its ever been.

I think what we're seeing is a case of "minority rule" [2].

[1] https://www.ccn.com/7-companies-you-should-renounce-if-you-s...

[2] https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...

[system16]

About the only fairly large tech company CEO that has spoken out against China is Stripe's Patrick Collison:

https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1277783532182671361?lang...

Mind you, Stripe has no real vested interest in China so that's probably why, but at least it's something.

Edit: Also, with the pace at which China is eroding Hong Kong's freedoms, the Great Firewall expanding to Hong Kong can't be that far off. Once Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are also banned in Hong Kong, maybe then they'll have an opinion.

[anonms-coward]

Microsoft and Apple makes good money from China, so don't expect them to do anything. Microsoft Bing works and censors in China, and yet microsoft PR department is so good to keep them safe from any outrage over this.

[baylearn]

LinkedIn also works in mainland China, but it is subject to censorship. [1]

[1] https://www.inkstonenews.com/tech/linkedin-says-profile-poli...

[baybal2]

> Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Blizzard

Don't you think that C-levels of all of them were previously dying to get into China, and were ready to do anything?

On my memory, Google's advisers were all over Kremlin, coaching the regime in "internet media operations" in 2005-2008, teaching them how to hound opposition online, and doing psyops style public opinion manipulation, while inventing silly lies about the nature of their collaboration. This is a close as it gets to treason.

[paganel]

Any handy links for that Google-Russia story? It’s not that I don’t believe, because I do (IMO this is something that Google would have done) it’s just that I’m on mobile and am too lazy to search for those links myself.

[baybal2]

That episode has near no coverage in English, and I don't think much of coverage in Russian survived to this day.

But here is it in basics:

Russian opposition was completely dominating the Internet at the time, before around 2005, a complete opposite of the picture on the TV, and fake opinion polls.

Kremlin was not happy, and went straight to the Internet's "kingmaker" — Google (or maybe it was the other way around?) Publicly it was to get its officers "taught" about internet media, but the writing on the wall was way more obvious.

At around late 2005, Google announces them "optimising their algorithms against abuse," and within weeks opposition's websites start to disappear from Google one after another. Google obviously claim "we did not hardcode anything," but simply rearranging the word order in search was enough to expose them doing that.

At the same time, we saw a wave of very weird adsense political ads on sites associated with opposition, and a wave of exhilarating pro-Putin drivel in Western media, clearly suggesting they got some Western spin masters on their side now.

[fuoqi]

There is an easier explanation: Kremlin just started to spend money on its Internet presence and opposition could not match it, which got amplified by more people getting connected to the Internet (thus instead of tech savvy crowd sympathetic to opposition, you get a bigger share of conservative "simple man"). Opposition just got relaxed and thought that Internet will be their home ground forever. And it's far easier for opposition to blame Google for collusion with the government, than to work hard on quality of their websites. Compare the old "non-systematic opposition" influence with the drive behind people like Navalny and you can see that there is no conspiracy, just laziness vs hard work.

[baybal2]

Even that wouldn't mean nearly all opposition media vanishing from the Internet in the span of few weeks.

[fuoqi]

Any independent confirmation of those allegations?

In my personal experience Meduza articles are near the top for some topics and several years ago Dozhd was popular as well, also sometimes I get links to opposition LJ blogs. Also there was a large shift to Telegram channels from traditional websites.

[greesil]

It would be really helpful if you could link to a source for this information, even something of ill repute.

[9nGQluzmnq3M]

Um, I thought Yandex was the dominant search engine in Russia, not Google?

[baybal2]

It wasn't really, it only managed to clearly dominate long after Google's interest in Russia cooled down.

[fuoqi]

It's a blatant lie. Google never was as dominant in Russia, as in the US or Europe, at best times it had 50-60% of market share (mostly thanks to Android popularity). In 90s Russian market had quite popular Rambler and Apport, whose share got mostly absorbed by Yandex later.

[seganddr]

I suggest that you read that account's post history before you believe their claims.

[aspenmayer]

I read their history, and I don’t know what you mean with this comment. Could you link to specific examples? I don’t know them, but their comments seem well reasoned.

[ariwilson]

It's hilarious that this unsourced made up story is near the top of this comment thread. People've gotten quite conspiratorial about big tech I guess.

Here's an actual story about Google and China: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-g...

Google quit China for 6 years, tried to go back, got outed again and shut down again.

[gentleman11]

If we are calling for treason charges, there really needs to be a link to a reliable source

[wxnx]

> Don't you think that C-levels of all of them were previously dying to get into China, and were ready to do anything?

> ...

> treason

In the case of China, doesn't the US government in some ways encourage this? I forget the colloquial name for the "policy" (if you can call it that, because I don't think it's codified into law), but isn't the idea that if the US shares some of the fruits of capitalism and liberal democracy with China, the people of their country may follow suit?

[baybal2]

> if the US shares some of the fruits of capitalism and liberal democracy with China, the people of their country may follow suit?

You don't share liberal democracy by teaming up with rogue regimes against it.

[wjn0]

I'm not saying the policy is worthwhile or even justifiable, but the comment I replied to later used the word "treason" (sorry, I didn't quote it) which implies that these actions aren't endorsed, and certainly not encouraged, by the US government.

[baybal2]

I want to put people's attention on distinguishing in between actual sharing of fruits, vs Western companies coming to repressive regimes without good faith in mind from the start.

[wjn0]

Sorry, I didn't mean to detract from that point. I completely agree.

[baylearn]

I think Facebook, Twitter, Google, and all the other US-based platforms offering HKers a voice are next.

See the recent WSJ piece: "Facebook, Twitter, Google Face Free-Speech Test in Hong Kong" (https://redd.it/hkw6yh)

[spamizbad]

You’re asking them to support “cafeteria capitalism”

Supporting BLM or LGBTQ+ Equality costs them nothing, even if you go beyond a PR gesture. You can put Black and LGBTQ people on your board and in corporate leadership positions and it will not have it negatively impact your bottom line in any measurable way. Maybe equalizing salaries would impact the bottom line but not by a significant amount.

However, by (rightly) calling out Chinas numerous human rights abuses you risk being shut out from China. That directly impacts your bottom line the way putting a Black Ivy League grad rather than a White Ivy League grad on your board does not.

Same logic applies regarding ICE contracts. Talking about how great immigrants are costs you nothing. But refusing to do business with alphabet agencies that terrorize and inhumanely interns them impacts your bottom line.

People love to harp about how corporations are amoral and are only obligated to follow the law and create value for their shareholders. If you adopt this worldview then don’t be surprised if companies start doing business with tyrants.

[tossthere]

> If they really stood by their values they would act in the same way as they did by supporting the BLM movement.

Companies don’t have values, people have values.

Many people think of companies as if they’re people because that’s how they’re presented in consumer media, and many US laws treat them as entities similar to people. But they aren’t people.

The supply and logistics chain that manufactures car seat headrests and transports them from Taiwan to Los Angeles does not have an opinion or a moral stance on any issue that you care about. It’s a bunch of factories and different forms of freight transportation.

[raspyberr]

Corporations are not people. No matter how much they've tried to convince you and even gain rights over the last 150 years. They. Are. Not. People. They don't have emotions or intentions.

[Symbiote]

Prefix each company name with "the directors of".

The directors of Google have not made a statement on Uighur in China, etc.

[api]

BLM is American and overlaps with a lot of customers. There are more black customers and others who sympathize than racists.

Hong Kong is "over there" and these companies do not have a large customer base there. China on the other hand is a monstrous potential market that they all salivate over accessing, but to do so they must suck up to the CCP.

Not hard to understand...

[throwaway34241]

> If they really stood by their values > It's just another proof that they only did that to get press coverage

I don't have any special insight into their motivations. But aren't the consequences very different? As far as I understand it, if western companies publicly go against the Chinese government the only change they will get will be being kicked out of the country and being replaced with a local competitor.

I'm skeptical about corporate activism too, I just don't like the idea that intentionally picking totally losing battles should be some kind of standard. Even in a real military conflict it's reasonable to avoid that.

[geodel]

They acted the way they did in BLM movement because of immense political pressure. And they acted Hong Kong they way did again because of immense political pressure.

I see no inconsistency here that companies are responding in manner agreeable to groups holding political power in both cases.

[doliveira]

The companies' PR statements are innocuous for society at large and are at best just thermometers for the current political climate. I don't know why people expect huge corporations to have good hearts and enact political change by themselves; that is on us.

[caymanjim]

I don't expect or even want corporations to wade into the social and political arena, beyond doing the right thing with as little fanfare as possible. When they choose to publicly pat themselves on the back, they're begging to be called out for their inevitable hypocrisy when they fail to do so at inconvenient times, as the parent is doing. They should shut up and build things.

[kwistzhaderach]

I don’t really think they reflect the current climate. Many of those who are silent don’t believe in these ‘campaigns’

[koonsolo]

I would think that the more wealthy you are, the more ethics you can afford. Who cares about not gaining some billions when you already have multiple billions in the bank?

But somehow, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Is it just greed, or am I missing something?

[miles]

And yet, virtually of those who have spoken truth to power have not been wealthy. As Einstein put it[1]:

"I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can produce fine ideas and noble deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and always tempts its owners irresistibly to abuse it. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?"

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_9kDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT37&ots=...

[ubercow13]

Of course they did. That seems like the inevitable result of there being so much social pressure for them to make such statements.

[BurningFrog]

People do things that benefit them, and avoid doing things that harm them.

They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments. Our brains are very good at coming up with those.

Once you understand and accept this, you can process the world on a higher level.

The hardest part is seeing when you do this yourself.

[hoophoop]

Let's stop with the performative cynicism on HN.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that (mentally healthy) humans are pretty capable of empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

> They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments

You are claiming that selfishness is the only driver but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning goes both ways.

Besides, why do you refer to people as "they"? Are you a bot?

[Analemma_]

Humans can have empathy. Publicly-traded corporations cannot.

[BurningFrog]

I agree that humans have a lot of empathy, and that selfishness is far from our only driver.

[BurningFrog]

The book to read to learn about this is "The Elephant in the Brain".

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H8K4G9G/

[beaner]

The corporations in these statements are guided by the people. They seem like an awfully random segment to point out for this. They haven't expressed anything because neither have your friends, Twitter, the news media, and politicians. Maybe the disgrace lies with them.

[_y5hn]

There is healthy competition in the market place to accomodate fascism.

[Ghjklov]

Not surprising. There won't be any Chinese people coming to riot and destroy their businesses if they don't.

Just like how many small businesses are forced to put up signs supporting BLM and signs saying they are minority owned and asking to not be looted. Because there is an implicit threat of being destroyed if you do not support BLM.

[hkai]

The folks protesting in Hong Kong are not really aligned with the views of the US Democratic Party or left-wing activists in the US.

I think they are more aligned with the classical liberalism which doesn't seem to find much support these days.

[jpgreens]

This is not surprising at all. BLM is a neomarxist movement which is ideologically aligned with the CCP. The fact that all these companies are expressing support for BLM is absolutely terrifying and shows how much power this new neomarxist movement has.

[hkt]

I don't think wanting black people to not get regularly murdered by the police is marxism, per se. Neither is being against celebrating slavers etc.

Claiming the CCP and BLM are on the same page would be comical if I wasn't so sure you were serious.

[anonms-coward]

BLM is not a monolithic entity though, and is comprised of lots of groups pushing lots of agendas. e.g https://mobile.twitter.com/agavedelacalle/status/12691745749... .

I was lucky enough to read about china in university and read 3 different books about Mao for varying perspectives. What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution. Making "anti progress" people kowotow to the revolution, taking away their means of livelihoods. Wait till these people start saying that anyone with a slightly different opinion than the revolution is a racist and needs to be "reeducatted", and long for a social credit system similar to china.

The CCP also didn't start with the goal of oppressing people. It started with the goal of ending century long oppression of chinese peasants at the hands of the ruling elites. If you read Mao's little red book, he even makes some arguments against censorship.

[iamalone]

> What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution

Certainly the Cultural Revolution was way way worse. And yes it brings to mind certain similarities for sure. Taking away livelihoods without due process is bad. Being put to death is worse.

Current events do bring to my mind certain aspects of "self-criticism" [1]. As an observation, I'm thinking of the other HN front page post [2] about de-escalating. I'm not on twitter so maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Apparently if I tweet something wrong, it might explode virally and I might lose my livelihood... and the solution is to de-escalate (maybe with some tool twitter might helpfully provide) by apologizing and learning that there's still a lot to learn, to deeply admit the mistake, and listen deeply and thoughtfully, and to be reeducated on what's wrong with what I thought.

Another aspect brought to mind is "struggle session" [3], "a form of public humiliation and torture that was used ... during the Cultural Revolution". Certainly what happened in CR is absolutely way worse. What happens on twitter and elsewhere online do bring to mind certain aspects I've observed... the public humiliation and shaming, mobilizing the masses online, group of people accusing another 'privileged group or person, revisiting past mistakes.

There are indeed interesting similarities to compare and contrast though.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23734535 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

[peroporque]

The actual numbers of murders by police do not support that claim though.

To quote (black) Columbia scholar McWhorter: "black people in the US are 2.5 times more likely to be poor, and they are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered by police."

Highly recommend to take an hour and watch him for example being interviewed by Coleman Hughes (black, Columbia U scholar) or on the Glenn Loury (black, Brown U scholar) podcast.

[jpgreens]

Thanks for introducing me to Coleman Hughes!

[jpgreens]

While your first two statements are true, they are a textbook example of a straw man argument. I did not say they are marxist because they don't want people murdered by the police. I also didn't say they're marxist because they're against celebrating slavers.

If you're willing to learn, you may want to look up what Patrisse Cullors has to say about her own BLM movement. I feel sorry that you think this is comical.

[hkt]

The material achievements and goals of BLM stemmed from those basic things. I feel sorry that you seem to not have noticed this.

[jpgreens]

Please enlighten me as to which material achievements you refer. The destruction of neighborhoods and statues? When the distinction between inanimate objects that do not represent their ideology and living human beings fades, the world they will have created will be worse, not better, despite their apparent good intentions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism

[pjc50]

It's traditional to label any left-wing movement in the US as "Marxist", regardless of the actual content of its views, simply because that's an effective thought-terminating cliche for the rightwing audience. Nobody cares about the historical analysis. The intent is always the same; in this case, to make it clear that if the police aren't allowed to murder people in the street without repercussions, America will immediately become a communist dictatorship.

(Some people in the movement do self-identify as Marxist, yes; so what? That's a convenient way of avoiding looking at their actual politics.)

[aebtebeten]

If one is into black humour, it's amusing that one can find actual slavers arguing that if people were allowed to call for Abolition without repercussions, America would become a communist dictatorship.

(I went wait what at first, but I guess the communists were already a thing in the 1830's, so it makes sense educated people would've been familiar with them)

https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund7

> "Now, as every well-informed person knows, the fact is indisputable, and has often been boasted of by the infidel press, that anti-slavery sentiments were first propagated by the ultra socialists and communists--those miserable sans culottes, who, during the memorable French Revolution, raised the cry of Liberté, Fraternité et Egalité, and in the madness of their drunken folly enthroned a nude harlot in the Temple of Justice as the goddess Reason, the object of their admiration and worship. At that time England and Massachusetts were virtuously engaged in supplying the slave-marts of the world with cargoes fresh from Guinea and Loango, and our Northern divines had not the least suspicion that the Bible condemned slavery. But, sansculotteism being quelled in France, soon found a foothold in Exeter Hall, and thence spread to the United States. For a long time the clergy resisted the storm of radical ideas, but being only men like the rest of us, and having an eye to benefices, calls, surprise-parties, and the like, as well as "itching ears" to catch the sweet voices of the rabble, they have at last almost surrendered in a body in the Free States, and now seek to lead in the new crusade ..."

> " Already, we repeat, this terrible question is being mooted in secret conclave; and should the time ever come when it shall be mooted openly--when loudmouthed and earnest men, fresh from the people, shall bestride Faneuil Hall, bawling for an equal and exact distribution to every mechanic of whatever craft, to every operative of whatever mills, to every laborer of whatever grade--bawling, we say, for an equal and exact distribution to the workmen of the net proceeds of their combined labor; and denouncing in the same breath pampered capitalists, as so many lordlings growing rich on the earnings of the moiling and toiling poor, reaping where they have not sown, and gathering where they have not scattered; upon what plausible pretext will you, Sir, then seek to gainsay them? You will have none. Dumb and quaking with fear you would be constrained to acquiesce in their logic; for they would only use in their own behalf the identical arguments you have assiduously tried to impress upon their minds for ten years and more, in order to persuade them to interfere in the affairs of their neighbors."

^F "socialist" for more of the sort. Hundley would've hated 140 characters.

These days the french have moved on; they're even going for Liberté, Sororité et Egalité. What horror! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_nVMZK3rM

[jpgreens]

This is a nice example of why I think calling ideologies by their name is more helpful to a discussion than calling a collection of ideas left- or rightwing.

[a9h74j]

I don't know what the referenced claim was, but typing "blm trained marxist" into ddg gives a page of confirming links.

“We’re trained Marxists.” - Patrisse Cullors, BLM Co-Founder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8 (1.5 min video in her own words)

In the UK the veil has started to lift. BLM-the-organizations are increasingly recognized as anti-capitalist, again based in their own words.