![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 11th, 2013 12:26 pmWhen we consider the current discussion in Russia wrt Stalin vs Hitler we may find its form remarkably similar to philosophical discussions about human consciousness and its relationship to strong AI.
That is, the form of the argument is essentially the same: to make a comparison we have to explore two levels of the phenomena - its syntax and semantics. Strong AI has the latter only, while human consciousness has both. In short, strong AI realized by a computer algorithm cannot impose meaning on 0s and 1s; it can only shuffle symbols according to the algorithm. On the other hand, human consciousness can read and interpret the symbols as meaningful notions, e.g. by interpreting sentences shown on the computer screen.
How is it similar to the discussion about Stalin vs Hitler? When we rationally compare internal policies of the regimes created by Stalin and Hitler we see practically identical systems. The difference emerges only when we start impose meanings on the systems, assigning value to the outcomes.
For the Germans, Hitler's rule resulted in death, destruction, and defeat. In short, the value of his rule is negative, whether one approves of naziism or not. Unlike the outcome of the World War I, Hitler's defeat could not be attributed to the "Stab in the Back" because Hitler systematically killed or imprisoned all his internal political opponents.
For the Russians, Stalin's rule resulted in death, destruction, and a major war victory. It can be described as a typical war narrative where one has to suffer in order to defeat one's enemy. The more Russians feel at war with the rest of the world, the greater value they will assign to Stalin's system, its equivalence to the Hitler's notwithstanding. The cult of the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) practiced by the Russian government reinforces the war narrative and serves as a justification for giving the government a carte blanche for imposing its rules on the citizens.
When it comes to economics, the Russians don't have the benefit of a side-by-side comparison that DDR vs BRD provided to Germans. Most Germans could see that even a mild version of Stalinism imposed on a part of their country lead to economic stagnation. Similarly, the Chinese had Taiwan and Hong Kong to compare to the mainland communist China. It was obvious to them that maoism was a dead end economically. By contrast, to many Russians, including Putin, life in DDR looked like a socialist paradise; they felt they needed something like a better socialism. When the Soviet Union fell apart and the country suffered through a chaotic state property privatization, many started to believe that it was due to the "Stab in the Back" - similar to how the Germans felt after the WWI. They wanted a victory and Putin, benefiting from high oil prices, gave it to them. Putin is no Stalin, but his authoritarian tendencies seem to be justified by the same narrative that justifies Stalin's victory.
To summarize, when we consider the Stalin vs Hitler debate at two levels we can see that on rational grounds one has to condemn both of them equally. When it comes to question of interpretation of the outcomes, we can understand that some Russians feel good about Stalin because they associate themselves (or their familiers) with the victory in WWII. They (just like sports fans) like to bask in reflected glory (BIRG), believing that Stalin's recipe for death and destruction will create future victories for their country.
That is, the form of the argument is essentially the same: to make a comparison we have to explore two levels of the phenomena - its syntax and semantics. Strong AI has the latter only, while human consciousness has both. In short, strong AI realized by a computer algorithm cannot impose meaning on 0s and 1s; it can only shuffle symbols according to the algorithm. On the other hand, human consciousness can read and interpret the symbols as meaningful notions, e.g. by interpreting sentences shown on the computer screen.
How is it similar to the discussion about Stalin vs Hitler? When we rationally compare internal policies of the regimes created by Stalin and Hitler we see practically identical systems. The difference emerges only when we start impose meanings on the systems, assigning value to the outcomes.
For the Germans, Hitler's rule resulted in death, destruction, and defeat. In short, the value of his rule is negative, whether one approves of naziism or not. Unlike the outcome of the World War I, Hitler's defeat could not be attributed to the "Stab in the Back" because Hitler systematically killed or imprisoned all his internal political opponents.
For the Russians, Stalin's rule resulted in death, destruction, and a major war victory. It can be described as a typical war narrative where one has to suffer in order to defeat one's enemy. The more Russians feel at war with the rest of the world, the greater value they will assign to Stalin's system, its equivalence to the Hitler's notwithstanding. The cult of the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) practiced by the Russian government reinforces the war narrative and serves as a justification for giving the government a carte blanche for imposing its rules on the citizens.
When it comes to economics, the Russians don't have the benefit of a side-by-side comparison that DDR vs BRD provided to Germans. Most Germans could see that even a mild version of Stalinism imposed on a part of their country lead to economic stagnation. Similarly, the Chinese had Taiwan and Hong Kong to compare to the mainland communist China. It was obvious to them that maoism was a dead end economically. By contrast, to many Russians, including Putin, life in DDR looked like a socialist paradise; they felt they needed something like a better socialism. When the Soviet Union fell apart and the country suffered through a chaotic state property privatization, many started to believe that it was due to the "Stab in the Back" - similar to how the Germans felt after the WWI. They wanted a victory and Putin, benefiting from high oil prices, gave it to them. Putin is no Stalin, but his authoritarian tendencies seem to be justified by the same narrative that justifies Stalin's victory.
To summarize, when we consider the Stalin vs Hitler debate at two levels we can see that on rational grounds one has to condemn both of them equally. When it comes to question of interpretation of the outcomes, we can understand that some Russians feel good about Stalin because they associate themselves (or their familiers) with the victory in WWII. They (just like sports fans) like to bask in reflected glory (BIRG), believing that Stalin's recipe for death and destruction will create future victories for their country.
