SO HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN Google's seemingly irreconcilable Africa and
China strategies--one so morally wholesome, the other so full of
ethical holes? One explanation, of course, is hypocrisy. Many
critics, particularly those on the traditional left, argue that
Page and Brin are capitalist hypocrites, no different from the
robber barons of the 19th century, making an ill-gotten fortune out
of China and then easing their consciences on meretricious
humanitarian gestures in Africa. Neither Larry Page's humanitarian
trips to Ethiopia nor the philanthropy of Google.org, critics
argue, have any significance beyond the symbolic. As the
neo-Marxist cultural critic Slavoj Zizek notes in a recent London
Review of Books essay, the Google founders are "liberal communists"
whose "frictionless capitalism" allows them to simultaneously
flatten the world economy, make a fortune, and feel ethically good
about themselves.
But Zizek's interpretation of Google's ethical hypocrisy falls into
the classic Marxist trap of explaining human motivation purely in
terms of material greed. Hypocrisy might be the right word to
describe Google's brand of morality--but I would argue that this is
a hypocrisy rooted in values, not economic self-interest. Google's
moral code reflects the unconventional values of its founders. It
represents the hypocrisy of authentic capitalism.