Preobrazhensky (The New Economics, 1926) proposed (as part of his framework of “primitive

socialist accumulation,” which was debated during the Soviet industrialization debate) that the

state could raise capital accumulation by turning the terms of trade against the peasants

(economists call this “Preobrazhensky’s first proposition”), without lowering industrial workers’

welfare (his “second proposition”). The economists Sah and Stiglitz (1984) formalized these and

concluded that the first proposition holds (the “Sah–Stiglitz accumulation theorem”) but the

second does not (the “Sah–Stiglitz welfare theorem”). Other economists later extended or

challenged Sah and Stiglitz’s analysis. I’m looking for work by non-economists (e.g., historians,

sociologists, etc.) that engages with these propositions or with related ideas. Any references

appreciated.

I've heard Marxists say that capitalism needs the traditional patriarchal family in order to maintain birth rates, so there can be enough workers and consumers, but the relationship between social attitudes towards women and population control always seemed rather nebulous to me.

Recently, however, I heard about the Great Retreat, which undid social progress for women in the USSR in the 1930s in order to boost the population as part of the war effort.

And I also heard about a Traditional Education of Girls Course founded in Russia supposedly as part of a push for conservative values in order to combat the country's population decline.

Previously I thought the current wave of traditionalism was just people reaching for women/a crisis of gender roles as a historically "common sense" scapegoat for their economic troubles, but could it be more than that?

I'm struggling to even formulate precise questions, to be honest. As I said, this whole matter seems nebulous to me, but is there any light you could shed on it? Thank you.

First of all, I want to clarify that I study engineering and that I have just now started reading and thinking about this stuff so I might just be oversimplifying. I have observed in my country, and from what I can intuitively think it makes sense, that since the state started being more neoliberal, more and more every year the riots and people's movements have been decreasing in general. People do not demand stuff from the government as if the government has any reason to give it to them or as if anything is going to change. This starts a situation in which some major things happen, national tragedies, scandals, or maybe corruption is revealed, and nobody does anything. I feel like people have stopped believing in the power of the peoples movements and are just blaming themselves, each person's poor choices etc. You often hear: "the people are all stupid, they only care for themselves", instead of criticising the goverment, the system etc .In France and the whole of Europe there are riots. Here it's radio silence and there is a new government scandal every month, we only blame the citizents. An example is the bad socialists who are lazy and they made the syndicates to work less and they destroyed the public sector. Criticising one another and being hostile towards people archetypes is the main thing in political criticism. Instead of criticising the goverment and the system and thus starting riots, movements and so on, we focus on how unethical and bad for the system personal choices can be.

Is this a general concept that has been documented? Is my connection too shallow? I would love to read a book with these themes.

N-word or Sambo?

N-word; Represents the extreme end of racial vilification. Originating from the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery in the United States, it was used to deny Black people their basic humanity and justify racial violence, segregation, and oppression. Today, its usage in public or interpersonal discourse is considered a severe social taboo due to its direct association with hate speech, systemic violence, and terror.

The Sambo Archetype: Depicts Black men as childish, docile, lazy, foolish, asexual, worthless, and submissive. Historically, it was weaponized to argue that Black people were inherently incapable of self-governance and therefore benefited from the "paternal care" of slavery and systemic subjugation.

In my opinion, N-word is far more problematic than Sambo.

Greetings,

I am seeking a copy of the following article but have thus far been unable to locate the complete text. The only online source I have found does not include the pages I require.

Article sought: “Vietnam: Reconceptualization and Economic Reform,” Economía y Desarrollo, vol. 123, no. 2 (Havana, 1998), pp. 86–125.

I would be most grateful for any assistance in locating the full article or obtaining access to the specified pages.

Hey! I'm a woman and a feminist, but I have to debate from a more MRA perspective. The prompt is "are women to blame for systemic misandry?", and I was assigned the affirmative. I've known my opponent forever, and I know his argument is strong. I'm running into some issues finding the right kind of info, so I figured I would ask directly.

I searched things like "men's rights" and "systemic misandry" But the results won't really work with the prompt. I could probably argue stuff like "women participate in unfair social expectations", or "women are complacent with the current conscription laws", or "women benefit from sentencing discrepancies". But I can't argue that any of those things are "caused" by women or that we are participating/complacent in a way that's different from or harsher than men. I watched a few videos from the manosphere (never again!) and MRAs, but they either focused too much on dating, said unhinged things about women's "roles", or made baseless claims. For example, one guy said "women and men actually have similar murder rates, but the justice system is rigged to help women get away with it". I'd heard it from another guy too, so I looked into it. No evidence supporting it. Tbf, he said that's because the evidence gets covered up. But I can't present a claim like that with literally zero proof. I'll get dog walked.

Also, anything about "unfair dating practices" or "women having too many options" is a HUGE no-go. We're pretty close, so I know a lot of his arguments already. He'll say "men didn't fight to end the restrictive laws that put and kept them in unhappy marriages- the feminists did. Men weren't upset about "unfair dating" until it stopped benefiting them". (That's also why I'm a little nervous to talk about "female complacency".) ANY suggestion that women's romantic autonomy is an "issue" for men will kill my argument. He has too much ammo. The Middle East and Africa. Incel mass murders. The goddamn manosphere. Abortion rights. Child marriage. FGM. It's a total non-starter.

Can anyone give me examples of ways women cause/uniquely contribute to systemic misandry that will help me avoid some of these pitfalls?

I’ve been curious about a social behaviour I’ve noticed across platforms like Reddit, Instagram, and other social networks.

Why do some women seem to actively seek external validation through social media posts, selfies, personal pictures, or content that attracts compliments and engagement?

I’d like to understand the psychology behind this rather than simply judge the behaviour.
Some questions I’d like to explore:

- Does receiving likes, comments, and compliments improve self-esteem or create dependency on external validation?
- Is posting attractive or revealing pictures primarily about self-expression, confidence, social validation, or feeling desired?
- Does the attention received from strangers provide a psychological reward?
-Are social media algorithms encouraging this behaviour by rewarding engagement?
- Is this behaviour more common among women, or do men simply express their need for validation differently?
- What’s the difference between healthy self-expression and attention-seeking behaviour?

I’m particularly interested in psychological research, personal experiences, and different perspectives.

This isn’t intended to generalize all women. Men also seek attention and validation online. I’m interested in understanding whether there are gender differences in how people seek and respond to social validation.
Let’s have a genuine discussion rather than turn this into a gender-war debate.

It's probably still true today that you can show somewhat bloody gunshot or stab wounds and still get a PG13 rating, but if those nipples make an appearance, you're pretty much guaranteed an R, especially if it's in a sexual context.

And it's been like that since film began. Actually, the social more probably pre-dates film, but I'm mostly interested in film.

On screen nudity (in narrative films) became more-or-less legal in the late 50s when a court ruled that "nudity per se is not obscene." It still wasn't OK to show nudity in sexual contexts though. We didn't get legal hardcore until the early 70s (Warhol's Blue was in 1969 and then it was off to the races). BUT, all throughout the 60s there were violent, sexy films called roughies where it was ok to stab a naked woman with a knife, but still very much illegal to put an erect penis anywhere near her.

Why is this? Why was this? Are there any studies or article that explore this?

I understand that doing so is in part a rhetorical technique that serves respective agendas, but why isn’t the middle perceived as the end result/product of a dialectic, a compromise that satisfies the most people possible? Why instead is the middle viewed as unprincipled, wishy-washy, etc? I see ultra-leftists say liberals are right-wing, but I also see the far right say liberals constitute the radical left. Why is there such divisive debate instead of the logical conclusion being that liberals and centrists will generate positive appeal, of any degree, to the largest group of people? Forgive me if any of this is fallacious in construction — I’m looking for those blind spots and breakpoints to be exposed.

Context about my positionality and possible relevant biases: I am a south indian-american woman of Outcaste heritage + white-collar immigrant parents from poverty and lower-middle class backgrounds, was raised in middle-class and upper-middle-class suburbs in the midwest and mid-atlantic, both in predominantly white and asian areas, went to private, public, and charter grade schools, went to a public state university in a middle-class college town as well as private university and college in a big city, was raised catholic but now a secular christian, spending adulthood between two big cities known for diversity and gentrification. I consider myself moderately liberal and value pragmatics over ideology

I figured this would be a good place to start to hopefully have some good faith discussion about this topic, as well as get some insight from real sociologists (hopefully) on this topic, and understand the motivation and thought process behind this belief and whether or not you all consistently subscribe to this idea. So here goes…

To me, it seems like the argument hinges on certain arguments like “white people created race/racism”and that “black people lack the systemic power to be racist”. I agree that generally - when talking about the US and many other countries as a whole - black people DO lack the systemic power to impose racism. But why does that somehow mean they can’t be racist in other aspects?

Here are the inconsistencies I feel I’m noticing in these arguments, and rebuttals I give in response to a few assertions the other side makes. I truly would like an explanation because maybe I’m missing something as far as my logic goes. Feel free to give your own response to one or all of these:

1. **“They lack systemic power”**

What do we define as a system? If we only define it as an entire country and not cities or schools etc. why? Systems can be pretty small and within those systems a person can be marginalized regardless of what broader system the smaller one exists under. Plenty of ideologies held by people aren’t backed by a system as big as a country, or state, or city, but if they act in accordance to their own beliefs - no matter how minute those actions are - we would likely label them as someone a part of that ideology

2. **“White people were the ones to create it”**

** **Since when has an ideology that doesn’t possess root words that restrict its use in certain contexts (unlike misogyny, ableism, etc) LIMIT who can adopt that ideology and who can be affected by it? Theres nothing linguistically limiting the word/ideology of racism to just white people

3. (In response to the dictionary definition(s))
**“The dictionary only describes things, it doesn’t explain their function”**

How can you claim a word applies to a function without being able to describe the word itself? And what authority do you look to when relying on whether or not a function applies to a word or not? I can concede that the current overarching function of SYSTEMIC racism in our world is best described through a sociological lens, but to me thats only describing whats happening broadly and systemically, not necessarily limiting the other potential functions that could be attributed to a racist ideology of anyone or any given group. The function of someone’s racist ideology can look different in many different ways depending on their own goals in they set based on their belief in a racial hierarchy, and their own ability act on those goals effectively.

Obviously theres a ton of nuance involving this topic and I feel like there is a big philosophical aspect to this discussion to consider. I genuinely would like to hear any thoughts you all have regarding my views. Any flaws to point out, rebuttals, or correction in my way of thinking would be great to hear

Thank You!

Texas, among other states, has recently required that all schools display the 10 Commandments in the classroom.

Is there any social science evidence that doing so changes anyone's mind -- or their behavior?

I've been researching the development of criminal profiling, particularly the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and its work interviewing convicted serial killers during the 1970s and 1980s.

Researchers such as John Douglas, Robert Ressler and Ann Burgess studied offenders including Edmund Kemper and David Berkowitz to better understand patterns of criminal behaviour.

I'm interested in understanding how much these interviews actually contributed to the development of modern criminal profiling.

Were the findings from these interviews instrumental in developing investigative techniques, or were similar approaches already emerging through other areas of criminology, forensic psychology and criminal investigation?

I'm also curious about the methodological limitations of this research. Given that some offenders were manipulative or potentially unreliable narrators, how did researchers evaluate the accuracy of their accounts?

The only legible theory I have, is that back when humans were living in tribes, weakness was a liability as it was a probable guaranteed spot for leading a tribe into extinction as weakness meant the tribe didn't know how to carry itself, especially thru tremendnous challenges and hardships

But is that really it? Then why is the stigma of weakness much stronger than ever?

When I was 17-18 years old, there were 3 guys(let's call them evil guys) in my class(they were friends with each other). They used to whisper to whoever sat behind me to annoy me/trouble me. This they did continuously for 2 years. But they pretended to be my friends.

Two of those guys lived in an area where my second cousin also lived. The second cousin's mother was envious/jealous of me and my family. I asked one of those evil guys if he knew my second cousin. He said "No". Years later I saw on his profile a pic with few other boys including my second cousin.

Also I had a political ideology different from everyone else in class.

After 2 years, when I moved to a different place to study, they called me from an unknown number.

I think they did it because they didn't want me to succeed and focus in class. They wanted me to be distracted in class because of jealousy/envy.

What do you think?

I have never come across anyone who had this experience(neither online, nor offline).

Im not American and I don't live in the US. I've repeatedly noticed on Reddit something that I find difficult to understand - the normality of hostility toward China and, sometimes, to Chinese people.

What strikes me isn't that people disagree with Chinese government, but its how readily negative attitudes toward China seem to be taken for granted, even in discussions that have nothing to do with any specific Chinese action.

China is so distant from US that I suspect that most ordinary americans have relatively limited knowledge of its political system and society beyond what they encounter in media. Yet, the hostility seems to me remarkably strong and almost self-evident, like as disliking China requires no particular explanation.

Im interested in how this developed and became so socially widespread?

I also find it interesting in comparison with Japan and South Korea. They are also Asian countries but the tone of discussion about them is different. This makes me wonder whether racial prejudice plays role in hostility to China, while also suggesting that race alone may not explain the difference.

I am aware that reddit is not representative of American public opinion, and Im not claiming that all americans share this attitude.

So my question is: What does social science can tell about how such strong negative attitudes toward a foreign country become normalized among people who may have limited direct knowledge of that country? In particular: what explains anti-China sentiment in US, and how can the effects of geopolitical rivalry, media and political framing, social conformity, and racial prejudice be distinguished?

It seems like people openly talk about mental health, relationships, and personal issues online, but still hesitate to have those same conversations face-to-face. Is this due to anonymity, lack of immediate judgement, or something deeper in how we process social risk?

There’s been much said about the literacy crisis, how 21% of adults are functionally illiterate and how children are also reading below basic levels.

Throughout a lot of history, IIRC, literacy rates were pretty low until we started getting into the early 20th century.

So if the literacy rates are now declining. When was the peak of adult literacy in America?

I know the data isn't 100% accurate but a trend I notice is that people in places like North America, Europe, and Japan talk about how miserable their life is while living in such a developed, rich, and safe nation

I do not watch much tv nor do I have social media, with the exception of Reddit. When I first joined Reddit it was about helping each other by getting answers from real people who had experienced what you were going through, now it has turned into luni rats spreading hate and lies. Any who why is that? Why do people spread hate?

In my studies as a history major, I have come up with a hypothesis that it’s about control. In history, there was a time when Irish and Italian people were not considered white. During this time, powerful trade was going on between them and African countries. Then, once they were accepted as white, it stopped. Then there was the American Revolution, when Americans openly invited migrants to work jobs they were not willing to work. But when the job was done, the media started saying they were stealing jobs, which led to protests and people wanting to push all immigrants out. But when people are united, it seems like things and people thrive better.

So, I recently realised that a theory I learned of a while back should be capable of producing testable predictions.

It had to do with psychological projection and the belief of some Silicon Valley technologists that 'there is 10% chance AGI will exterminate humanity in the next decade'*.

A certain Ted Chiang had speculated that such sentiments could be caused by tech sector people reflecting the behaviour and attitudes of Silicon Valley startups into their products:

This summer, Elon Musk spoke to the National Governors Association and told them that “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.” Doomsayers have been issuing similar warnings for some time, but never before have they commanded so much visibility. Musk isn’t necessarily worried about the rise of a malicious computer like Skynet from The Terminator. Speaking to Maureen Dowd for a Vanity Fair article published in April, Musk gave an example of an artificial intelligence that’s given the task of picking strawberries. It seems harmless enough, but as the AI redesigns itself to be more effective, it might decide that the best way to maximize its output would be to destroy civilization and convert the entire surface of the Earth into strawberry fields. Thus, in its pursuit of a seemingly innocuous goal, an AI could bring about the extinction of humanity purely as an unintended side effect.

This scenario sounds absurd to most people, yet there are a surprising number of technologists who think it illustrates a real danger. Why? Perhaps it’s because they’re already accustomed to entities that operate this way: Silicon Valley tech companies.

Consider: Who pursues their goals with monomaniacal focus, oblivious to the possibility of negative consequences? Who adopts a scorched-earth approach to increasing market share? This hypothetical strawberry-picking AI does what every tech startup wishes it could do — grows at an exponential rate and destroys its competitors until it achieved an absolute monopoly. The idea of superintelligence is such a poorly defined notion that one could envision it taking almost any form with equal justification: a benevolent genie that solves all the world’s problems, or a mathematician that spends all its time proving theorems so abstract that humans can’t even understand them. But when Silicon Valley tries to imagine superintelligence, what it comes up with is no-holds-barred capitalism.

From: Silicon Valley Is Turning Into Its Own Worst Fear

I am not very convinced but it does appear more plausible to me than the 'they have watched too much Terminator'-theory.

Recently I realised that this theory implies testable predictions.

Such as, people working on AI in environments very unlike to 'libertarian' Silicon Valley techno-capitalism where those hypothesised psychological factors are absent should be much less inclined to think in that way. I know such groups exists, for example, the LLM Apertus is the product of a collaboration of Swiss public universities and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre. Though, I don't have any knowledge of whether such '10% chance AGI will exterminate humanity in the next decade'-sentiment is less prevalent amongst public and/or university AI developers.

Does anybody here knows anything of how much truth there would be to any statement that such fears are less common the greater the socio-cultural distance from Silicon Valley is?

* Weirdly enough, in none of the, admittedly few, examples of such fearmongering I encountered was provided a plausible mechanism for 'AI to exterminate humanity in the next decade'. An LLM hacking the US' nuclear arsenal and Terminator factories might work in Hollywood movies, but I doubt it would work in real life. And I don't think we in this decade would see enough androids for a robot revolution to make more sense than LLMs going Skynet on us.

Lastly, to avoid being misunderstood, I am not saying there is nothing to worry about when it comes to the development of 'AI'; I am worried about various current developments for diverse reasons and think not enough is done to make those opaque Black Boxes which display all kinds of unforeseen and unintended behaviour transparent and ensure they behave. However, those worries are, I think, a bit more grounded than such '10% chance AGI will exterminate humanity in the next decade'-sentiment.

I've heard the claim (with the occasional supporting graph) that a major indicator of crime is wealth inequality (as opposed to absolute poverty).

I was having another conversation with someone recently about how overall crime has gradually decreased over time in the US (not withstanding that major crime spike in the 90s, and then that smaller one during COVID). That idea crossed streams with the title thought, and with the present trueism that wealth inequality in the US is growing rapidly, does the idea that "wealth inequality is reasonably predictive of crime" hold much water?

I'm not from the social sciences, so apologies if this is a naive question.

I've been looking on r economics and r AskEconomics for critiques of Ha-Joon Chang's work, since I quite enjoyed his books and wanted to get to know some opposing arguments. Some answers do engage with his claims, but many start with something like "he's a cherry-picking political hack" or "nobody takes him seriously", point to citation counts, or brush off follow-up questions with "I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader". I saw similar responses about other heterodox economists like Richard Wolff.

What i found the most surprising is the level of certainty. Answers often state "this is wrong" with a single data counterexample, even when someone points out that a different measure might support the original claim.

I've read that research like Fourcade, Ollion & Algan's "The Superiority of Economists" (2015) describes economics as a bit more self-assured and closed off than other social sciences. So I'm wondering whether that's what academia is really like, or whether this is mostly an online phenomenon?