Public Discussion Group

We meet once every week on Tuesdays at 7PM for public meetings where we discuss current events, organizing we are involved in, and political theory. Sometimes we have a reading for the week, sometimes a general topic for discussion. Reading isn’t required to participate. If we aren’t meeting  a certain week it should say so here or on our facebook page.

We welcome people of all political affiliations (except hostile right-wingers) provided they are willing to engage good faith without being obnoxious. If you know nothing about about Communism and want to learn, you’re more than welcome to come.

Our meetings are currently held at Lee’s Grocery (map).


Next  week (Tuesday March 14th) the reading will be the The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky.

26 thoughts on “Public Discussion Group

    • I wish to introduce a subject – Mode of Production and its relation with (change of) social order – by way of posting a few of my articles.
      (This article is posted by: Shreepal Singh)

      We first take the Marxist concept of “Mode of production” for consideration. What is the meaning of mode of production?

      Mode is the type, kind or style of production.

      Production is the production of commodities.

      There are many types, kinds, styles or modes of production, which are qualitatively different from one another. It is the prominence of a particular type, kind, style or mode that makes it different from another one.

      In the capitalist society, the mode of production is ‘manufacturing of commodity through machines in industrial establishment’.

      In this mode of production, the means of production are: machines (which are the product of science and technology); human beings who work on those machines as laborers; raw materials, which could be processed by those machines into the finished products or commodities; land whereupon the machines and manufacturing establishment are set up; and, other resources required to accomplish the production of commodity, like water, coal, electricity, oil etc.).

      In this mode of production, the production forces are: human beings who labor on those machines as workers; human beings who own those machines and manage that workers labor on machines so that commodities are manufactured.

      This mode of production is found in capitalist society.

      This mode of production is/was also found in the so-called socialist society. (In the social evolution, the first stage is socialism and the second, or final, stage is communism. In none of the socialist countries, socialism could not be transformed into communism; and, before socialism could be transformed into communism, socialism itself disintegrated.)

      There have been many other modes of production in the past.

      Before the advent of capitalism, there was agricultural mode of production in feudalism.

      In agricultural mode of production, predominantly ‘the commodities are produced through agriculture’.

      In the feudalist society, or in the agricultural mode of production, the means of production are: land, on which tilling could be done; oxen or horses, which could be used to carry on the agricultural activities; crop seeds, water, manure, sickle, plough (which are the products of science and technology) are other parts on the list of means of production following the ‘agricultural mode of production’.

      In the feudalist society, or in the agricultural mode of production, the production forces are: human beings who work on the plough, oxen/horses, sickle etc. to till the land; human beings who own the land (on which the agriculture is done) and manage the workings of those who till on that land.

      In an earlier period of human history, there was still another mode of production. It was the economic system where ‘the production of commodities was accomplished by slaved-human beings’. The prevalence of this mode of production depended on the ‘efficacy or utility’ of slaved-humans, which differed from place to place. It was not common and uniform as was, later on, the agricultural mode.

      In the ‘slaved-humans’ mode, the means of production are/were: slaved-humans; chains to confine the slaves; land or artisan shop, where the slave could work; other required concomitants like, tools, raw materials, which could be worked upon by the slaves, confining enclosures etc.

      In the ‘slaved-humans’ mode, the production forces were: humans who worked as slaves; humans who owned those slaves and managed that they worked on the tools etc. to produce commodities.

      Before the ‘slave-humans’ mode, there was an earlier mode of production. It was in the tribal societies. These societies were of the primitive people. These humans were those who had just emerged out of the animals’ way of life. They were not animals, they were humans. The only thing that differentiated them from animals, was that they `produced commodities’, which was unlike animals. In all other respects, these early humans were just like animals: they lived in caves and hunted their prey for food, like animals. But these early humans had learnt to fashion ‘tools’ (chiseled-stone spears, knives, scrapers etc.) to ‘produce’ commodities (hunted-flesh, honey etc.), which was unlike animals. This was their mode of production. This society is termed by Marx ‘primitive communist’ (primitive collective living) society. We leave this primitive human society, for the time being, at that and proceed further to note a few things here.

      We find that in all these societies, with differing ‘modes of production’, uniformly there were ‘two classes’ of people, which formed in each of these particular cases ‘the forces of production’. But there is an exception to this general rule of ‘two classes’ in the case of the ‘primitive earliest human society’.

      We find that there is a co-relation of time with the duration that a society following ‘a particular mode of production’ lasted.

      The earliest primitive society had lasted, perhaps, tens of thousands of years (if not millions of years).

      The ‘slave-humans’ mode of production was, by and large, unviable and an aberration in an otherwise smooth development of science and technology, and the refinement of the tools of production. This kind of society did not last for sufficiently long time.

      The ‘agricultural mode of production’ had a very long of run in its existence; even today, in a few countries this mode of production is still being dominantly followed (such countries are called ‘undeveloped’ ones today). But, taking every aspect into account, the ‘agricultural mode of production’ did not last longer in comparison to the ‘primitive mode of production’.

      The ‘capitalist mode of production’ has the shortest span of its existence. This mode is still prevalent and seems to last for some more time. Taking all these things into account, the capitalist mode of production is the shortest in its duration. It started with the ‘Industrial Revolution’, which took place a hundred and few more score of years.

      This shows that there is a geometrical progression in the development of science and technology, and therefore, in the rate of change from one ‘mode of production’ to another ‘mode of production’.


      • Mode of Production – my second article for group discussion:
        (This article is posted by: Shreepal Singh)

        In the 21st century, the capitalist mode of production (that is, industries powered by machines, which need human beings to work them up, and the capacity of capital to hire those human beings who can work those machines) is giving its way to a new mode of production based upon the new technology, which is called automation and is powered by a new invention known as Artificial Intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence makes the production of commodities completely automatic, obviating the need of human beings in the production process. In an economic system (that is, in capitalism) where the production-activity is carried on solely with a motive to earn more and more profit, the technological capacity of Artificial Intelligence to obviate the need of human-employment will create a situation where the major part of humanity would be rendered unemployed for the want of work. It will result in a volatile global civil-war like situation. We will consider this situation in the Marxist concept-frame.

        Let us continue with the Marxist concept “Mode of Production” and, in that light, identify a “new mode” that we can see today emerging on the horizon and find out how or which way that “new mode” is qualitatively different from the “present capitalist mode” of production.

        We are talking here of a new mode of production of commodities. How that new mode, which we can sense coming soon as an economic way of life, is different from the capitalist mode that we follow today and so very well understand?

        What is that element in the capitalist mode of production which makes it qualitatively different from all other past modes of production? How the capitalist mode of production is qualitatively different from the agricultural mode of production? And, how is the agricultural mode of production qualitatively different from the slaved-humans’ mode (which was a short-lived aberration) or from the primitive people’s hunting-gathering mode of production? That element which determines all these mode’s “difference of quality” would provide us the touch-stone to judge the new emerging mode’s status in this respect.

        Humans have evolved out of animals. Humans are still animals, except that they make “tools” of production and animals do not. (Humans need to make tools to produce commodities and this tool-making activity has evolved their brain from an animal’s state to the state of a human).

        What is the “utility” of a tool in the process of producing commodities? The utility of a tool is that it “saves human labor” in the process of producing commodities. Consumption of commodities by humans is the means of their (humans) survival in their struggle against the forces of Nature. Animals also consume food (which is not commodity in their case) to survive, which they do not produce. Humans also consume food (and many other things, which almost all are commodities), which they produce with the help of tools. And, humans are wise; they want to save their labor in the matter of commodity-production.

        Let us see, how humans have fared in this labor-saving exercise over the long period of their history.

        In the primitive society, humans were almost bare-handed in the matter of producing commodities, which were items of flesh taken out of the hunted prey; horns, bones etc. of the killed animals to be used by them as scrappers, borers etc.; collected honey; gathering wild fruits; etc. The “tools” used by primitive people for these food-collection activities (technically, production of commodities) were crude bone-made and stone-made scrappers, borers, harpoons, axes, hammers etc. As these tools were crude, they “saved” very little “human labor”. Then, almost “the entire labor” was done by humans by the force of “using their hands; getting together as a group to kill an isolated prey; agility of their body to climb the trees or run to kill animals”. Thus, at that stage, the tools “saved very little human labor”. Then, the quantum of labor saved by tools was the “minimal” in the primitive stage of the development of human history.

        We leave the slaved-humans mode of production (which is obvious and is not so important part of human history in respect of the commodity-production). We come to the agricultural mode of production and see how much “quantum” of the saving of human labor was achieved by the agricultural tools in the feudal society.

        In transiting from the stage of the primitive society and its stone and bone tools to that of the agricultural or feudal society, humans had/have much developed their tools of production (like iron-plough, horse/oxen, wheels etc.), which save much of their labor. How has this saving of the human labor been achieved in this agricultural society? This saving of the human-labor required for producing commodities has been achieved by “taking this labor away from the humans and imposing it on the animals”.

        The origin of the clash of interests between two antagonistic classes of human society lies in the human tendency/nature to somehow get oneself free from the labor (which is necessarily required for producing commodities) and impose this labor on somebody else.

        It is only for this reason alone that, except in the primitive human society (where the extreme odds of Nature made tribal people to jointly share this labor for the sake of their very survival), in the slaved-humans stage, the labor needed for commodity-production was shifted by a group of people from themselves to the slaved-humans (serfs). Then, this needed labor was shifted by a group of people from themselves to horses/oxen and these animals’ drivers (tillers of land); again, this needed labor was shifted by a group of people from themselves to machines and these machines’ operators (workers in industries); and, now in the 21st century this needed labor is in the process of being shifted by a group of people from themselves to automatic robots working by artificial intelligence.

        We are concerned here with the “quantum” of labor that is saved by a particular kind of tools. This quantum determines the question whether the new production-tools (or, means of production) are qualitatively different from the old ones or not.

        We find that in the primitive tribal society, the production-tools like stone hammer or bone spear save “negligible” human labor. In the next serfdom stage, slaved-humans save “considerable” amount of human labor. Further on, in the agriculture based feudalist society, the animals-driven plough etc. save “great amount” of human labor. In the modern machine-driven industrial society, there is the “greatest or the maximum” saving of human labor. Today, in the 21st century, the new technology known as “Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence” is slowly replacing the old tools known as “machines”. How much amount of the human labor is “saved” by this new technology in the matter of commodity-production? What is the “quantum” of this saved labor?

        The new technology of the 21st century makes humans completely “free” from labor in the matter of commodity-production. There is the “total” saving of human labor here. It is a new “mode of production”, which is qualitatively different from the old “machine-driven industrial” mode of production.

        We know that in the primitive tribal society the people who lived by hunting animals and gathering wild fruits, it were the ferocious odds of Nature (the question of their very survival) that forced them to live united (or collectively). Their primitive tools – stone-hammers and axes, bone-spears and piercers – were not enough to make them survive against wild animals and hunger. In addition to these tools, these people needed the strength of their unity as a tribe or family and the superiority of their number. Then, in the struggle for survival there was no scope left for them for any social discord or division among them. It was the Primitive Communism.

        We leave this subject at that. For the time being we are not touching the question of how this new technology (or the new mode of production) would cause “total unemployment” of humanity.

        At the end, we note that from the primitive tribal society, where their tools saved almost “negligible” amount of human labor in the matter of the production of commodities, to the 21st century of today, where our tools are saving almost “complete” amount of human labor in this respect, there is the completion of one cycle. It is a full cycle commencing with the arrival (by way of evolutionary transformation from animals etc.) of the primitive tribal humans and ending with the modern humans, who are able to fabricate artificial intelligence. It is one complete phase of life’s evolution on Earth. And, a new evolutionary cycle awaits us.


      • Mode of Production again for discussion. Please read articles in due sequence.
        (This article is posted by: Shreepal Singh)

        We come back to the ‘capitalist mode of production’.

        Unless there is a new ‘mode of production’, no new social system (socialism or communism or any other one) can come into being. If a new social system is brought, or sought to be brought, by force by changing the ‘relations of the forces of production’, while the ‘mode of production’ is still the old one, such new social system would be an artificial one and would not last for long. And, a new mode of production can only be brought into existence only by the development of science and technology.

        What is the state of the development of science and technology today, in so far as this development impacts the prevalent mode of production? We will consider now.


      • For the time being, one more article on Mode of Production for discussion.
        Posted by: Shreepal Singh (my email:

        Mark Walker (Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies, New Mexico State University) has conducted research on the impact of Artificial Intelligence on employment and has published an article in Journal of Evolution and Technology (Vol. 24 Issue I – February 2014 – pages 5-25). Our article is based upon the conclusions of his studies. We have liberally borrowed the material from his published work and the entire credit goes to him, except where we have put our own opinion on the subject.

        While analyzing the working of our present / liberal economy, we have already mentioned that there are five prerequisites for the smooth working of this economy and that the absence of even one of these parametric conditions would make this economy collapse. To recapitulate, these five primary requirements for the working of the liberal economy are: Firstly, the liberal economy is founded on the basic premises that the private initiative of a free person must be allowed to take the risk (of investment in commodity-production) in his strides and allowed to reap the sweet or bitter fruits of that risk. Secondly, this economy needs that technology must has advanced to such a degree that, in the process of commodity-production process, the machines start to play the primary and the natural resources the secondary role in the process. Thirdly, this economy must ensure that it is the capital and capital alone which can purchase machines and that such capital must not be freely available to all. Fourthly, this economy must ensure that machines needed for production always need human-hands to operate them. Fifthly, this economy must ensure that the human-hands (needed to work those machines) would be available on hire by capital and willing to work (interestingly, Mark Walker has termed this the “threat-economy) under the prevailing circumstances of those human-hands.

        In this series of articles we will show on the basis of studies made by researchers that Artificial Intelligence has already begun to replace the present liberal economy with a new economy where “machines” are not material machines (needing capital to purchase them) but “knowledge machines” (like coded software, altered DNA etc.), which do not need capital to make/buy them; “knowledgeable human-hands” are not always available on hire (like, open source software etc.) by capital; machines are there that do not need human-hands to operate them (like, robots); it is but apparent that today technology has greatly advanced and raw materials play only secondary role in the process of producing commodities, and that this new technology plays the primary role in the production-process. Of course, the motive of the private initiative of a free person still remains today to reap bitter or sweet fruits of this initiative. It looks that it would be the last part (of the liberal economy) to be replaced by the new emerging economy, which is being built by Artificial Intelligence!

        Mark Walker says he believes that on the horizon there is an age where humans might work because they want to work, not because they must work. Though he does not give any reason why humans would be allowed to work by those whose only purpose to run production is to earn profits, when there is no need of them for their work. After all, these humans, if employed by employers, need to be paid their wages, which lessens the employers’ profits.

        Moral considerations, like employers should realize the explosive consequences of the new technology – total unemployment – and should somehow employ people though their work is not needed, are nothing but the jarring notes in this context. Such an approach to the problem in eagerness to solve it, is itself against the very foundation of the present system: all employers are actuated by the motive of earning profit. The whole concept of liberal economy is based on the natural human tendencies and instincts: to secure advantage, benefits and security against uncertain future.

        Mark Walker sees the oncoming of an age where human labor would be like the labor we devote to our hobbies, motivated by joy and self-actualization. The author is not oblivious of the dooming prospect of the Artificial Intelligence on human employment and in an effort to avert this sad prospect suggests certain schemes to be adopted, with which we are not concerned here. However, we may observe that in our opinion these “suggested schemes” to avert the sad consequences for the “threat-economy” of the Artificial Intelligence are nothing more than the last ditch efforts or fire-fighting measure.

        He says that our economy (liberal capitalism) is the ‘threat-economy’ where fear of starvation, homelessness and death work as a `stick` to ensure that the work by humans is made `imperative’ (remember our proposition that capitalism needs for its survival that humans must work on machines.) and says, `the threat-economy faces a paradox: the threat-economy says everyone must work but the threat-economy will not generate enough jobs for everyone, so the work of some will become redundant`.

        He does not discount the possibility that one day machines will completely replace all human labor. There are other studies also, which say that it is not the “possibility” but “certainty” that one day – and that day is not far off – machines will completely replace all human labor. (We shall refer to them in due course).

        Mark Walker points out that the threat to employment of people from robotics can be visualized in the emerging situation where all the jobs being done presently by human beings could be taken over by robots. We may fast-forward ourselves (in our imagination) ten or twenty years hence and we would find that the razor was made at an entirely robotic factory and shipped robotically to an Amazon distribution center. When Mr. A’s order was placed, it was robotically packaged and sent out in a small robotically driven helicopter, small enough to drop the package right at his doorstep. We would find that gone too are the small army of human shelf stockers. This job is now done robotically. Robots are also in use at every step in the distribution and production sequence. Robots packed and drove the food to your local Walmart. Robots also were used to grow the food on the farm. Then they were packed and shipped robotically as well.

        He rightly observes that it may be unnerving to those who do not follow robotic development closely that a very little extrapolation from our current technology is required to the new one.

        The idea that the electric razor might reach your hand untouched by any other human is only a small extrapolation from current technology. He gives the following examples to substantiate his conclusion.

        Recently, Philips Electronics opened a factory in the Dutch countryside that uses 128 robots and 1/10 the human labor as a counterpart factory in China (Markoff, 2012). The robots work with greater acuity and dexterity than is possible for an unaided human, e.g., one robot bends a connector wire in three places, and guided by video camera, slips the bent wire into holes too small for the human eye to see (Markoff, 2012). The robots are able to do such incredible feats at such a rapid rate that the robots themselves must be enclosed in glass cages: their rapid speed is a danger to the few humans working in the factory. And mind you, the robots are capable of working 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.

        The new way of manufacturing has made obsolete the old way: hundreds of Chinese workers assembling razors in China by using human labor!

        Not only is manufacturing being revolutionized by robotic workers, but the same is happening in the shipping and receiving industry.

        On the transportation end, Google has software that drives cars without drivers: vehicles that can drive themselves on busy roads

        The safety record of this software already exceeds that of the average human driver. It is not hard to imagine that human driven vehicles may be illegal in twenty years, only because they are so dangerous in comparison to robotically driven vehicles

        This does not stop here: even this small residual workforce will be replaced in large measure by “farmbots.” In all likelihood, in twenty years, robots will greatly outnumber humans on farms in the U.S, says Mark Walker.

        A recent report (NYT News Service reported in TOI April 27, 2014) says dairy operators in upstate New York farms, besieged by the soaring prices of human-hands to take care of their business of milking cows (or, enticed by the availability of a new cheaper alternative!), have entered into a new brave world of “robotic milkers”. These machines feed and milk cow after cow without the help of a single farmhand. These robots have popped up across New York’s dairy belt, which allow cows to set their own hours, lining up for automated milking five or six times a day. Equipped with transponders around their necks, the cows get individualized services; lasers scan and map their underbellies, and feed the data to a computer which prepares a chart of “each cow’s milking speed”. The robots also monitor the amount and quality of milk produced; frequency of visits to the machine; how much each cow has eaten; and, even the number of steps each cow has taken per day, which can indicate when she is in heat.

        Tim Kurtz, a dairy businessman who has installed four robotic milkers last year at his farm in Berks County, Pa, says, “It is tough to find people to do it well and show up on time”. Now he is happy that the machines installed by him never complain about getting up early and working late hours!

        Not only will we see a radical reduction in the need for human employment in manufacturing, distribution, transportation and agriculture, but in more “cerebral” professions as well. There are medical programs that outperform even experienced physicians in diagnosing disease.

        It seems that hardly a week passes when there is not some headline screeching about robotics taking jobs.

        Medicine is not the only high profile profession under siege: there are computer programs operating today that can perform legal research faster and more effectively than well-trained lawyers (Krugman, 2011).

        The so-called “oldest profession” should also worry about the reduced need for human labor in their very “private” field. Sexbots are available now with several different “personalities,” capable of performing a number of different sexual acts. As the price drops, there is every reason to suppose sexbots and other robots will replace even more human labor (Levy, 2011).

        Another example of robotic progress is Baxter from Rethink Robotics. Baxter is an industrial robot designed by Rodney Brooks, inventor of the Roomba robot. Baxter learns by doing rather than having new code input. This makes the lifetime cost of Baxter an order of magnitude cheaper than many of its competitors ($22,000 versus $500,000), informs us Mark Walker.

        Robots like Baxter will revolutionize industrial production. Interestingly, there is already a robotic hamburger maker available from Momentum Machines (Murray, 2013). It will cook up to 360 hamburgers an hour, plus cut fresh tomatoes, lettuce and pickles. Or consider Kura, a sushi restaurant chain in Japan that uses robotics to lower its labor costs (Chan, 2010).

        The news given by Mark Walker is that Philips Electronics has already found it more economical to set up a robotic factory in Europe than have electric razors made in China with cheap labor and then shipped to Europe.

        If robots take away enough employment to make full employment impossible, then the paradoxical result emerges that there is a demand for people to do the impossible. It is a logical paradox of the “threat-economy”.

        Mark Walker refers to the currently raging debate on the prospect of robotics or Artificial Intelligence on employment between the two rival camps, which he terms as “Chicken Little” (alarmists camp that sees robotics taking away all jobs) and “Economists” (read liberal economists who say the new technology will create new unforeseen jobs). He says that the case for Chicken Little is based on the observation that computers and robotics are making inroads into so many sectors of the economy: agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, retail, professional services, teaching, health care, and food services to name but a few; while the case of the rival camp, he observes, is based on an inductive argument based on the general premise that the future will resemble the past. Similarly, the economists’ argument uses the same inductive pattern: every time automation displaced workers in the past, new jobs were created by new technology.

        He very wisely says that this time the future will not resemble the past and that to see why the future will not resemble the past, economically speaking, it will help us to step back for a moment and ask ourselves what role humans play in the economy.

        What we offer to the economy in terms of labor is aptly illustrated by a comparison with horses: At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there was an employee, whose job and livelihood largely vanished in the early twentieth century. This was the horse. The population of the working horses actually peaked in England long after the Industrial Revolution, in 1901, when 3.25 million were at work. Though they had been replaced by rail for long-distance haulage and by steam engines for driving machinery, they still plowed fields, hauled wagons and carriages short distances, pulled boats on the canals, toiled in the pits, and carried armies into battle.

        But the arrival of the internal combustion engine in the late nineteenth century rapidly displaced these workers, so that by 1924 there were fewer than two million. There was always a wage at which horses could have remained employed. But that wage was so low it did not pay for their feed (Clark, 2008).

        Mark Walker asks a very interesting question: Why did new career opportunities not open up for horses after the invention of the combustion engine? After all, if we are to believe that new job opportunities will open up for humans in the robotic revolution, then surely capitalism should have found jobs for horses after the internal combustion engine revolution.

        The unbridled optimism of the economists seems to suggest full employment for horses too. So, why did so many of them end up at the knackers? Why shouldn’t we predict the same thing for human workers this time when robots have come in to replace humans and which perform better than humans (as engines performed better than horses)? Shall we all human-hands also end up like horses did? Why did so many of horses end up at the knackers? Mark Walker answers: horses have one main thing to offer the labor market, namely, their physical labor.

        As the quote from Clarke (given by Mark Walker) indicates, it is not that physical labor is not valued in the modern economy; it is simply that the internal combustion engine (or electrical engine) can provide the same physical labor much more cheaply.

        Humans have three things to offer the economy: brains, muscles and nostalgia. History shows the inception of two great transformations in the economy. The first, approximately 1800-1950, is where human muscle power was replaced by machine power.

        The Second Great Transformation, 1950-2050, is where computers and robots replace human minds in the economy. Humans can still compete in the area of the mind, but as we have seen, this advantage is dwindling.

        Robots that work in factories, advanced computers that drive cars in busy traffic or make accurate medical diagnosis, or do effective law research, all are making inroads into areas where humans once had a unique advantage and where now robots have this advantage over humans.

        Now we can see then why this time the past is not a particularly good predictor of the future in the case of employment.

        Unlike the displacement of labor during the First Great Transformation, there is no untapped category this time for surplus human labor to migrate to. Firstly, there are no new sectors openings with the advent of robotics and, even if there are new openings, then the cost advantage in the matter of employment will lie with robots for the most part, and so there will be weak demand for human mental labor in the future just as the demand for human muscle dropped precipitously in the past (with the advent of engines), concludes Mark Walker.


  1. Not sure if my comment made it. Do you have a link to the Adolph Reed “Marx, Race and Neo-liberalism” piece?


    • Yes, we need to write up a schedule. This week and next week we’re going to be doing Kautsky’s Road to Power though. We’re also meeting on Wednesdays now, i’ll have to update this.



    Second Edition of Revolutionary Feminism Released

    We offer the second edition of Revolutionary Feminism, the third volume of our Communist Interventions series. The new edition is available as a PDF, ePub or Mobi on our reader page at

    The new edition includes several new texts, extensive typo corrections, and a new epilogue.

    Revolutionary Feminism, Communist Interventions vol. 3, Second Edition

    Table of Contents


    1 The Origins of an Orthodoxy
    1.1 Frederich Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884)

    2 Second International
    2.1 August Bebel, Woman and Socialism (1879/1910)
    2.2 Eleanor Marx and Edward Aveling, The Woman Question (1886)
    2.3 Clara Zetkin, Only in Conjunction With the Proletarian Women Will Socialism Be Victorious (1896)
    2.4 Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Suffrage and the Class Struggle (1912)
    2.5 Rosa Luxemburg, The Proletarian Woman (1914)

    3 Anarchism
    3.1 Lucy Parsons, Woman: Her Evolutionary Development (1905)
    3.2 Voltaire de Cleyre, The Woman Question (1897)
    3.3 Emma Goldman, The Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation (1906)
    3.4 Emma Goldman, Woman Suffrage (1910)
    3.5 Milly Witkop-Rocker, The Need for Women’s Unions (1925)

    4 Russian Revolution
    4.1 V.I. Lenin, Speech at the First All-Russia Congress of Working Women (1918)
    4.2 V.I. Lenin, Soviet Power and the Status of Women (1919)
    4.3 Clara Zetkin, Lenin on the Woman Question (1920)
    4.4 Alexandra Kollontai, Communism and the Family (1920)
    4.5 Leon Trotsky, Thermidor in the Family (1937)

    5 American Communist Party
    5.1 Margaret Cowl, Women and Equality (1935)
    5.2 Mary Inman, In Woman’s Defense (1940)
    5.3 Claudia Jones, We Seek Full Equality for Women (1949)
    5.4 Claudia Jones, An End to the Neglect of the Problems of Negro Women (1949)

    6 Women’s Liberation
    6.1 Casey Hayden and Mary King, Sex and Caste (1965)
    6.2 Shulamith Firestone and Anne Koedt, Redstockings Manifesto (1968)
    6.3 Anne Koedt, The Politics of the Ego: A Manifesto for N.Y. Radical Feminists (1969)
    6.4 Roxanne Dunbar, Female Liberation as the Basis for Social Revolution (1969)
    6.5 Jo Freeman, The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1971)
    6.6 Women of the Weather Underground, A Collective Letter to the Women’s Movement

    7 Gay Liberation Front
    7.1 Radicalesbians, The Woman Identified Woman Manifesto (1970)
    7.2 Carl Wittman, A Gay Manifesto (1970)
    7.3 Radicalqueens, Radicalqueens Manifestos (1973)
    7.4 Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries, Street Transvestites for Gay Power Statement (1970)
    7.5 Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, Transvestite-Transsexual Action Organization and Fems Against Sexism, Transvestite and Transsexual Liberation (1970)
    7.6 Charlotte Bunch, Lesbians in Revolt (1972)

    8 Socialist Feminism
    8.1 Barbara Ehrenreich, What is Socialist Feminism? (1976)
    8.2 Chicago Women’s Liberation Union, Socialist Feminism (1972)
    8.3 Marlene Dixon, The Rise and Demise of Women’s Liberation (1977)

    9 Sexual Violence
    9.1 Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will (1975)
    9.2 Alison Edwards, Rape, Racism, and the White Women’s Movement (1976)
    9.3 Lilia Melani and Linda Fodaski, The Psychology of the Rapist and His Victim (1974)
    9.4 Combahee River Collective, Why Did They Die? A Document of Black Feminism (1979)

    10 Black Feminism
    10.1 Mary Ann Weathers, An Argument for Black Women’s Liberation as a Revolutionary (1969)
    10.2 Third World Women’s Alliance, Women in the Struggle (1971)
    10.3 Frances Beal, Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female (1976)
    10.4 Combahee River Collective, A Black Feminist Statement (1977)
    10.5 Audre Lorde, Age, Race, Class and Sex (1980)

    11 Wages for Housework
    11.1 Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Women and the Subversion of the Community (1972)
    11.2 Selma James, Sex, Race and Class (1975)
    11.3 Angela Davis, The Approaching Obsolescence of Housework (1981)

    12 Materialist Feminism
    12.1 Christine Delphy, The Main Enemy (1970)
    12.2 Monique Witting, The Category of Sex (1976)
    12.3 Monique Wittig, One is Not Born a Woman (1981)
    12.4 Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (1979)

    13 Sexuality

    13.1 Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood (1975)
    13.2 Silvia Federici, Why Sexuality Is Work (1975)
    13.3 Audre Lorde, Uses of the Erotic (1978)
    13.4 Patrick Califia, Feminism and Sadomasochism (1981)

    14 Dual Systems
    14.1 Heidi Hartmann, The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism (1979)
    14.2 Iris Marion Young, Beyond the Unhappy Marriage (1981)

    15 Social Reproduction

    15.1 Lise Vogel, Marxism and the Oppression of Women (1983)

    Epilogue to the Second Edition


    • Yes, we still meet, though now it is at PJ Dolan’s Irish Pub on Bearss near Bruce B Downs. We’re reading Nove’s Economic History of the USSR.


      • Oh awesome to hear! Id love to join. One more question, is it still on Wednesday or have you also switched days?


      • It’s still on wednesdays, at 6. However, *next wednesday* 06/29/16 we will NOT be meeting. Sorry if this is a bit confusing. After next wednesday, we will return to out perfectly normal schedule of meeting every Wednesday at 6:00 at P.J. Dolan’s.


  3. I go to an esl conversation group on Wednesdays at 6. Do you meet at any other times? If not, would I be able to keep up if I go every other week? (you’re still meeting, right?)


    • Yes, please feel free to come whenever you can. We limit the reading to around 50-100 pages a week, but usually closer to 50. We’re not too strict, so if you’re a few pages, or even a chapter behind that’s fine. Our goal is discussion and interaction.


  4. Is there a link where you have the book that’s being read and the chapter its on? I’d like to join the group but don’t want to come in clueless.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s