Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love | Solidarity https://www.solidarity-us.

org/node/1724

HOME ABOUT SOLIDARITY AGAINST THE CURRENT WEBZINE RESOURCES MEMBERS SEARCH

Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love

The November-December
Teresa L. Ebert 2016 Against the Current
(#185) features:
WHAT IS RED Loveand more specifically, what is a socialist, or more complexly, a communist
theory of love and sexuality? Robert Bartlett on the
Chicago Teachers
As a way of working toward an answer, I want to reread the Russian revolutionary Alexandra Union's Contract Fight
Sandra Lindberg on Oil
Kollontai's ideas about love and sexuality. How we reread Kollontai today raises questions not only
Piplines in Illinois
about the revolutionary value of her work but also about the historicity of our own reading. To avoid Marc Becker on Bolivia:
subsuming her revolutionary insights, we need to read dialectically between the current historical The Web of an
situation as well as the one out of which she wroteturning our critique-al attention to both our own Extractive Economy
limits and to those in which Kollontai worked. An interview with Jeffery Webber on Venezuela
Today
The first problem is the way knowledge about Kollontai has been erased from the cultural memory. Allen Ruff on World War I: Woodrow Wilson &
The "Reluctant Belligerent" Myth
Aside from a brief revival of interest in the seventies and early eighties, Kollontai is largely forgotten
among feminists and socialists alike. FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS: $25 one year ($30
overseas), $45 two years
As a Marxist revolutionary and Bolshevik, Kollontai struggled for the economic, social and sexual
emancipation of women in Europe and Russia during the first decades of the century. She played a See the current issue See past issues
leading role in the revolutionary struggles of the time and was considered, along with Trotsky and
Lunacharsky, to be among the most dynamic speakers for the Russian Revolution (Kollontai, 108).

She was also a key participant in the formation of the early Soviet state, becoming the first to head
the Department of Social Welfare in the new Soviet Union and later the head of the Women's How does
Department. Kollontai summed up her own life by saying that women and their fate occupied me all ecosocialist politics
my life and concern for their lot brought me to socialism (30). differ from
traditional socialist
Kollontai was deeply committed to the class struggle and convinced that the emancipation of women and labor politics?
required not only the end of capitalism but also a concerted effort to transform personal relations How do we ensure
the generalized
along with the struggle for social change. As part of this effort, she worked especially hard to make
satisfaction of
socialism responsive to the needs of women and children and to create a new communist sexual needs for all,
morality for a workers' state including the
equalization of
Thus she pioneered in the development of social welfare and collective child care; in the reform of living standards between the industrialized nations
marriage and property laws; in freeing women from the isolated drudgery of the home and to be and the rest of the world, if humanity can no
participants in the collectivization of domestic work; and in articulating a new theory of sexuality for longer afford to keep expanding production based
on energy from fossil fuels?
a collective society.
In 2014 Solidaritys Ecosocialist Working Group
But Kollontai was also a prominent critic of the bureaucratization and dominant economic policies of began a project to discuss these and related
the early Soviet state. This led, especially under Stalin, to her being largely discredited and her questions. We publish three essays here as the
ideas suppressed as she was, in effect, exiled to a series of diplomatic posts from which she was not beginning of a working paper exchanging ideas,
allowed to return until the last years of her life. (For a good introduction to Kollontai's life and proposals, and possible strategic frameworks. We
also invite your comments.
writings, see Kollontai, Alexandra Kollontai: Selected Writings, ed. Alix Holt.)
See the questions and responses here: Six
But this is all largely forgotten. If Kollontai is remembered at all, it is likely to be a misrecognition of Questions for Ecosocialists.
her as a proponent of the glass of water theory of sexuality, which was commonly seen as a
defense of promiscuity and free lovethe idea that sex should be as accessible and easily satisfied
as quenching one's thirst by drinking a glass of water.

In fact, however, Kollontai not only did not originate the glass of water theory, her anti-bourgeois Thanks to you and the friends 2 weeks 13 hours
theories developed a much more complex view that understood sexuality as both a social and
Great article, thank you. 2 weeks 1 day
historical relation (see Kollontai 13, Clements 231). Nonetheless, charges of sexual extremism,
Election 2 weeks 3 days
including the glass of water theory, have been widely attributed to Kollontaiboth in the West and
in the Soviet Unionas a way of ideologically distorting and undermining her transformative Hi Nisa-(Not sure if my post 3 weeks 17 hours
understanding of human interpersonal relations and social change. I am currently faced with 3 weeks 3 days

As we approach Kollontai and the issue of a red theory of sexuality today, we have to contend with
even more ideological distortionsnot the least of which is the attempt to suppress the history of
revolutionary workers' movements and class struggle and the efforts to try to reduce Marxism to an
accommodationist postmarxism. Enter your email address and sign up for our
announcement and updates list, Solidarity News.
We read Kollontai at a time when many socialist feminists have embraced poststructuralist politics Get articles and upcoming events delivered every
and when theories of sexuality are dominated by discourses of desire. It has now become month. email address
commonplace to consider sexuality as separate from class; thus the autonomy of desire has become
Subscribe
one of the deepest bourgeois Truths. Such positions are completely antithetical to the
revolutionary class-consciousness and profoundly materialist understanding that Kollontai brought to
Twitter Facebook
her work on sexuality.
YouTube RSS Feed
Throughout her political writings, public speeches and fiction as well as in her political work, email: [email protected]
phone: 313-841-0160
Kollontai consistently held to historical materialist principles and a revolutionary commitment to the
mail: 7012 Michigan Ave
emancipation of women and the workers' struggle, and especially a radical reunderstanding of Detroit, MI 48210
bourgeois notions of sexuality and love.

1 of 6 20/12/16 15:34
Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love | Solidarity https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724

The core principle around which her work is developed is first, a rigorous materialist analysis of the Solidarity depends on the generous contributions
historically varied forms of love and sexuality and their class basis. Second, an unwavering of its friends and allies to continue its work.
Please consider giving!
commitment to the role and importance of the workers' collective in building the new society and in
shaping interpersonal relations. Third, the firm conviction that effective social change involves the
dialectical interrelation of ideological struggle and economic change.

In Sexual Relations and Class Struggle, Kollontai criticizes the:

idea that proletarian sexual morality is no more than `superstructure,' and that there is
no place for any change in this sphere until the economic base of society has been
changed. As if the ideology of a certain class is formed only when the breakdown in the
socio-economic relationships, guaranteeing the dominance of that class, has been
completed! All the experience of history teaches us that a social group works out its
ideology, and consequently its sexual morality, in the process of its struggle with hostile
social forces. (249)

Kollontai argued, in other words, for the necessity of carrying out ideological struggle over the
structure of gender and sexual relations simultaneously with the social and economic struggles. We
forget the enormity of such a project in her time a time of world war and massive destruction of
the economy, the social infrastructure and the population, followed by revolution and civil war, and
the overwhelming difficulties of building a new egalitarian society out of such debilitating
conditions.

But we also know the cost of not doing sowhich was the resurgence, in the late `20s and early `30s
under Stalin of highly regressive patriarchal relations of the family and of gender and sexual
oppression, even as women made substantial gains in the economy. This was a betrayal of the
Leninist workers' state that Kollontai had envisionedin which equality of economic relations had
been intended to support, and in turn to be fostered, by a new communist sexual morality of free,
open and equal relations of love and comradeship.

Kollontai was quite aware of the dynamics of this regressive turnas she made clear in her last
public speech in 1926 On Marriage and Everyday Life (300-11). The ideological struggle at the
time between a resurgence of an entrenched, patriarchal family as opposed to what Kollontai called
new lifestyles of the proletariat was a result, she argued, of the class contradictions still
existing in the new society.

The emancipation of women, she contended, required a political commitment of economic resources
to provide for the welfare of women (many of whom were unemployed and still involved in domestic
labor) in order to free them from financial dependency on individual men and patriarchal property
relations.

The socialist approach, she argued, means that every woman has the right to desire and strive to
be free from anxieties when bringing up her child, and to be free from the fear that some day she
and the child will find themselves in need and without any means of sustenance (308-309). It is
precisely this socialist solution that was largely turned aside at the time, owing especially to a
lack of economic resources but also to political and ideological opposition to the possibilities of
collective restructuring of the family that had been opened up by the revolution.

Given her materialist and dialectical understanding, Kollontai would be quite critical of today's left
cultural politics and postmodern theories of sexuality for their profound neglect of the economic
basis of the emotional and psychological and the unavoidable class determinations of love and
sexuality. Kollontai argued that sexual relations, family and marriage are historical categories,
phenomena which develop in accordance with the economic relations that exist at the given level of
production (225) and change under economic pressure.

Social and economic changes, according to Kollontai, create conditions that demand and give rise
to a new basis for psychological experience and change all our ideas about the role of women in
social life and undermine the sexual morality of the bourgeoisie (246). The current reifications of
desirein the works of Deleuze and Guattari, Kristeva, Gallop, Butler, and de Lauretis, as well as
other poststructuralist, feminist and queer theorists (see Ebert, Morton)in which desire is
considered not only autonomous from the economic but also as primarily an individual circuit of
pleasure, are opposed by Kollontai's complex materialist and collective vision.

Love, Kollontai argued, is a profoundly social emotion. Love is not in the least a `private' matter
concerning only the two loving persons: love possess an uniting element which is valuable to the
collective (278-279). At the core of all Kollontai's thinking on sexuality was her analysis of how:

Each historical (and therefore economic) epoch in the development of society has its
own ideal of marriage and its own sexual morality . . . Different economic systems have
different moral codes. Not only each stage in the development of society, but each class
has its corresponding sexual morality . . . the more firmly established the principles of
private property, the stricter the moral code.

Kollontai thus found that The ideal of love in marriage only begins to appear when, with the
emergence of the bourgeoisie, the family loses its productive functions and remains a consumer unit
also serving as a vehicle for the preservation of accumulated capital (284).

Kollontai made the important argument that the very development, in capitalist society, of a
sexualized love that embraced both the flesh and soul (283)as opposed to feudal notions of
chaste, chivalrous lovebecomes the primary ideological mechanism for securing marital
cooperation and stability in the project of accumulating and preserving capital.

Nearly all sexual relations in capitalism are, for Kollontai, economic and property relations. The
legal onesincluding marriageKollontai contends, were all grounded in (a) material and financial

2 of 6 20/12/16 15:34
Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love | Solidarity https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724

considerations, [and] (b) economic dependence of the female sex on the family breadwinnerthe
husbandrather than the social collective . . . (225).

The other side of bourgeois marriage in capitalism is prostitutionnot only at the time Kollontai was
writing, but also for us today, given the massive expansion of the global sex trafficking in women and
children. The trade in women's flesh, Kollontai pointed out, is not surprising when you consider
that the whole bourgeois way of life is based on buying and selling. (264)

Prostitution and pornography have divided contemporary feminists, particularly around the issues of
sex workers' rights, identity and self-determination (e.g. Kempadoo and Doezema, Nagle). All too
often these debates are isolated from basic economic questions of labor exploitation and become
empty claims for the freedom of choice and free expression of their sexuality, as in Drucilla
Cornell's argument that what is needed is to protect women's imaginary domain so they have the
right to the self-representation of their sexuate beings as sex workers and to organize (45-58).

Such arguments may help alleviate the worst conditionsfor example, by enabling sex workers to
organize but they in no way engage the structure of exploitative relations. In contrast, Kollontai
cuts straight through these empty debates to go right to the core of exploitative relations, showing
the connections between the economic exploitation of sex workers and the commodification of
everyday sexual relations under capitalism. As she argues in Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It,

(T)he sale of women's labour...is closely and inseparably connected with the sale of the
female body ... This is the horror and hopelessness that results from the exploitation of
labour by capital. When a woman's wages are insufficient to keep her alive, the sale of
favours seems a possible subsidiary occupation. The hypocritical morality of bourgeois
society encourages prostitution by the structure of its exploitative economy, while at
the same time mercilessly covering with contempt any girl or woman who is forced to
take this path (263).

The only way to end prostitution, Kollontai argued, was to struggle against the conditions that
compelled women to find prostitution a necessary means of subsistence. Kollontai put forth a
complex, materialist understanding of this struggle.

The workers' revolution in Russia, she argued, had shattered the basis of capitalism and with it
the main sources of prostitutionprivate property and the policy of strengthening of the family (at
least in its first few years), but this was not enough.

Other factors she insisted, were still in force. Homelessness, neglect, bad housing conditions,
loneliness and low wages for women are still with us...These and other economic and social
conditions lead women to prostitute their bodies (265).

Thus, as Kollontai made very clear, to struggle against prostitution chiefly means to struggle against
these conditions (266). For as the first All-Russian Congress of Peasant and Working Woman
stated, A woman of the Soviet labour republic is a free citizen with equal rights, and cannot and
must not be the object of buying and selling (266).

This is the main difference between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism continues to define
freedomparticularly the freedom of civil society and the free marketas the right of individuals
to sell themselves and for those with money (capital) to buy othersto buy and sell wage laborbut
it also entails the buying and selling of people's sexuality even their bodies.

Democracy, over the years, has tried to put some constraints on the buying and selling of people
under capitalism, applying legal sanctions against some forms notably slavery and, in most cases,
prostitution. But that does not change the reality of the pervasive de facto buying and selling of
sexuality and bodies in capitalism.

The struggle against prostitution, as Kollontai and the early history of the revolutionary workers'
state made clear, needs to be the struggle first against capitalismagainst rule of private property
and the buying and selling of peopleand second against the array of social and economic conditions
compelling women into prostitution.

Kollontai's unwavering materialist analysis of love and sexuality made her a revolutionary for our own
times. Her work poses a serious challenge to poststructuralist theories for their erasure of the
economic exchange, commodification and capital accumulation involved in sexual relations under
late capitalism.

Women's economic dependence on husbands has lessened as more women themselves become wage
earners, but today's dual-income family is just a much a unit of consumptionand, in the case of the
owning class, a unit of capital accumulation. What has changed, I would argue, is the enormous
expansion of the commodification and exploitation of sexuality and bodies for profitthe buying and
selling of bodies and the representations of bodies, whether in prostitution, pornography or the mass
media.

The commodification of pleasure and desire for profit is an inescapable aspect of our lives and our
sexualityyet this is largely absent as a subject of poststructuralist theories of sexuality. Rather, the
valorization of transgressive/guilty pleasures as a liberating force in poststructuralist theories (such
as Irigaray, Cixous, and Grosz) is itself an effect of capitalist commodifications of pleasures. The
poststructuralist fetishization of pleasure thus forces us to ask how subversive are theories of
sexuality that obscure the economic relations of desire and the class interests embedded in its
current forms (see Transformation vol. 2, Marxism, Queer Theory, Gender).

Kollontai took her materialist analysis even further and critiqued the form of sexual subjectivity that
emerges out of the class interests and economic relations of capitalism. Briefly, she analysed the
contemporary psyche as characterized by an extreme individuality, egoism that has become a

3 of 6 20/12/16 15:34
Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love | Solidarity https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724

cult; by property relationsthe idea of `possessing' the married partnerand by the belief that
the two sexes are unequal, that they are of unequal worth in every way, in every sphere, including
the sexual sphere (242).

It only takes a moment's observation to show how strongly these features have continued into late
capitalism. While inequality among the sexes has changed some of its formsit continues unabated
as long as there are still significant economic differences between men and women.

The one we most neglect, however, is the extraordinary way that relations of sexuality, love and
desiring are so fundamentally grounded on property relations. The bourgeoisie, Kollontai argued,
have carefully tended and fostered the ideal of absolute possession of the `contracted partner's'
emotional as well as physical `I', thus extending the concept of property rights to include the right to
the other person's whole spiritual and emotional world (242).

The constant perpetuation of this subjectivity is one of the primary projects of bourgeois
ideologyfrom operas like Carmen to any popular romance novel or to such hot Broadway shows
as The Blue Room with a nude Nicole Kidmanin all these forms the measure of love and sexual
desiring is the fantasy of possessing the object of desire.

As a result, Kollontai argued, healthy sexual instinct has been turned by monstrous social and
economic relations . . . into unhealthy carnality. The sexual act has become an aim in itselfjust
another way of obtaining pleasure, through lust sharpened with excesses and through distorted,
harmful titillations of the flesh .... Prostitution is the organized expression of this distortion of the
sex drive .. . (286).

This may sound rather puritanical in an age of increasing acceptance of anything that will intensify
the pleasures of sensuousnesseven pain and violence. But Kollontai demonstrated that the pursuit
of pleasure as a performance of freedom is a very specific historical practice of the owning classes
and is not the basis for egalitarian, sharing relations of mutual sexual pleasure and personal regard
among people.

The valorization of excessive stimulation, excitation and sensation as ends in themselves distorts
human relations and capabilities and is a direct reflection of the alienating commodification and
exploitation of human relations that arises with capitalism. Claudia Broyelle extends this analysis, in
her book on Women's Liberation in China, when writing about sexuality under capitalism:

In a society where the division of labor becomes more accentuated, where the vast
majority of people are deliberately deprived of creativity, where work has no other
value than its explicit monetary one, sexuality becomes a means of escaping from
society through self-centered sexual consumption, rather than the full expression of
interpersonal relationships (Part 5, 2).

Left sexual theories commonly represent sexual excess and transgressive pleasures as subversive of
bourgeois morality and thus as emancipatory practicesthis is, for example, a frequent postmodern
defense of pornography (e.g. see Penley). But this fundamentally fails to recognize the relations
involved and instead to further promote the ideology of individual consumption and personal
gratification against the interests and well being of others.

The left has embraced an anti-repressive hypothesis of sexuality that is no different in its effects
and no more antibourgeois than the repressive hypothesis Foucault describes: the `putting into
discourse of sex', Foucault explains, has been subjected to a mechanism of increasing incitement .
. . the techniques of power exercised over sex have obeyed a principle . . . of dissemination and
implantation of polymorphous sexualities (12).

In fact, the increasing incitement and excitation of sex is exactly what capitalism requires for the
continuing proliferation of sexual commodification and control of subjectivities. As Reimut Reiche
states in his book on Sexuality and Class Struggle, desublimation becomes yet another form of
repression and control: when individual sublimation is collectively broken down, the individual is
subjected to the same powers which engineered his desublimation, and they henceforth decide for
him how he is to behave . . . when and how he reacts in an openly sexual way, and when and how he
curbs or gives free rein to aggressive urges (135).

In contrast to bourgeois property relations and individual gratification in sexual relations, Kollontai
argued that socialist relations of productionwhich are no longer organized around profit and the
exploitation of labor of otherscreate the conditions for profoundly different interpersonal
relations. These conditions make possible what she calls a new communist moralitythat is, new
principles of living for a workers' collective:

As regards sexual relations, communist morality demands first of all an end to all
relations based on financial or other economic considerations. The buying and selling of
caresses destroys the sense of equality between the sexes, and thus undermines the
basis of solidarity without which communist society cannot exist . . . . The stronger the
ties between the members of the collective as a whole, the less the need to reinforce
marital relations (emphasis added, 230).

Kollontai opened up a complex, integrated and materialist understanding of the revolutionary

possibility of relationships no longer based in any way on commodification, economic exchange or
financial considerations. Instead, she envisioned truly freethat is, equalrelations of love and
comradeship necessary both for human fulfillment and for sustaining the connections among
members in a collective.

This is the basis, for Kollontai, of a new class practice, a proletarian morality that replace(s) the
all-embracing and exclusive marital love of bourgeois culture, with three basic principles: 1.
Equality in relationships . . . 2. Mutual recognition of the rights of the other, of the fact that one

4 of 6 20/12/16 15:34
Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love | Solidarity https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724

does not own the heart and soul of the other (the sense of property, encouraged by bourgeois
culture). 3. Comradely sensitivity, the ability to listen and understand the inner workings of the
loved person (bourgeois culture demanded this only from the woman). (291).

Kollontai firmly believed in the emancipatory potential of non-commodified and thus non-possessive
relations among free individuals not bound by economic dependency. She believed in the social value
of what she called love-solidarity based on comradeship and equality and contends these will
become the lever in communist society that competition and self-love were in the bourgeois
society (290).

While Kollontai's own articulation of human relations was heterosexual (she speaks only about
relations between the sexes), her views of post-patriarchal, non-exclusive relationships open up the
possibility for a radical post-heterosexual society. At the core of Kollontai's communist morality is
the belief in the development of various degrees and kinds of intimacyof sexuality, love,
comradeshipamong individuals connecting them together in a collective.

These intimate relations in no way preclude intimacy between members of the same sex, and, in
fact, I would argue that a multiple, complex intimacy, across differences of sex and race follows
from such an open, non-exclusive, non-singular morality. Kollontai, in short, shows the way to
develop a revolutionary sexual theory in which sexual difference is no longer the basis for the social
division of desire because it is no longer the basis for the social division of labor.

An egalitarian workers' collective based on communist relations of productionin which, as Marx

states in his Critique of the Gotha Program, the needs of all are metwould abolish the exploitation
of differences. Thus while differencesof sexuality, of racemay not disappear, they would no
longer be the basis of inequality, privilege and the exploitation of othersand no longer the basis of
divisions of desire and labor.

Such radical changes will not occur automatically--they require, as Kollontai made very clear,
unrelenting, all-embracing social and ideological struggle as an integral part of the class struggle to
build a new social formation.

Kollontai's theory of sexuality shows the way to develop an emancipatory theory, a red theory of
sexuality. She is all the more important today when leading postmodern left critics and queer
feminists try to discredit historical materialist theories of sexuality as left conservatism.

Judith Butler, for example, in her essay Merely Cultural and her presentation at the Left
Conservatism Workshop (at the University of California-Santa Cruz, January 1998) decried the
resurgence of an economism and what she called an anachronistic materialism that becomes the
banner for a new Left orthodoxy (Left Conservatism II, 8). This new orthodoxy on the Left, she
says, work[s] in tandem with a social and sexual conservatism that seeks to make questions of race
and sexuality secondary to the `real' business of politics, producing a new and eerie political
formation of neoconservative Marxisms (Merely Cultural 268).

Such charges are, of course, part of the neoliberal propaganda aimed at legitimating the
entrepreneurs of desire as citizens of freedom.

A red theory of sexuality, as Kollontai demonstrated, is an understanding of the inseparable

dialectical relation of sex and the material relations of production. It is a commitment to ending the
economic exploitation and commodification of relations, and the social divisions of labor and desire.

It is the struggle to build free and equal relations of love, sexuality and comradeship in which desire
is neither simply sexual nor exclusive, but involves a solidarity of multiple connections and
interrelations to others as well as to the work and welfare of the collective. These are relations that
cannot be developed in a social formation dominated by property relations as the signifier of
individual freedom.

It is the struggle against this manufactured bourgeois freedom that Butler regards to be Left
Conservatism. Like the right-wing ideologues who have used political correctness to block
progressive pedagogical practices, Left Conservatism is the discourse of occlusion: It attempts to
halt, among other things, the struggle toward Red Love: that is, sexual and comradely solidarity.

Does Kollontai's vision of communist sexuality seem utopian? Yesif we accept as inevitable the
current neoliberalism and its tyranny of exploitative relations, social divisions of labor and
commodified individualism of capitalism. But for Kollontai and other Bolsheviks in the early years of
the Russian Revolution such relationships were a very real historical possibility.

Their failure is a historical, political and economic problem that we need to carefully analyzenot
just erase as obsoletein order to learn why they failed and how to actualize the full possibilities of
free and equal relations of love, sexuality and social collectivity Kollontai articulated. What such an
examination would enable us to understand is how profoundly dialectical is the problem: how
inseparable are the economic and the ideological; how fully integrated are sex and class, and how
sexual freedom depends on the material economic means to meet people's needs.

Works Cited

Broyelle, Claudia. Women's Liberation in China. 19 December 1998, http://www.blythe.org

/mlm/misc/women/wom_ch_toc.htm .

Butler, Judith. Left Conservatism, II. Theory & Event 2.2 (1998).

-. Merely Cultural. Social Text, 52-53 (1997).

Clements, Barbara Evans. Bolshevik Feminist: The Life of Aleksandra Kollontai. Bloomington: Indiana

5 of 6 20/12/16 15:34
Alexandra Kollontai and Red Love | Solidarity https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724

UP, 1979.

Cornell, Drucilla. At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex and Equality. Princeton: Princeton UP,
1998.

Ebert, Teresa L. Ludic Feminism and After: Postmodernism, Desire, and Labor in Late Capitalism,
Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1996.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. v.1. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Vintage, 1980.

Kempadoo, Kamala and Jo Doezema, eds. Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition.
New York: Routledge, 1998.

Kollontai. Alexandra. Selected Writings of Alexandra Kollontai. Ed. & Trans. Alix Holt. New York:
Norton, 1977.

Morton, Don. Pataphysics of the Closet: The Political Economy of `Coming Out'. Marxism, Queer
Theory, Gender. Transformation 2 (1999).

Nagle, Jill, ed. Whores and Other Feminists. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Penley, Constance. Crackers and Whackers: The White Trashing of Porn. White Trash. Ed. M. Wray
and A. Newitz. New York: Routledge. 1997. 89-112.

Reiche, Reimut. Sexuality and Class Struggle. Trans. S. Bennett and D. Fernbach. New York: Praeger,
1971.

Zavarzadeh, M., T. Ebert and D. Morton, eds. Transformation, vol. 2: Marxism, Queer Theory,
Gender (forthcoming).

ATC 81, July-August 1999

Printer-friendly version Send by email

Like 2 people like this.

Post new comment

Your name: *
Anonymous

E-mail: *

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage:

Subject:

Comment: *

Allowed HTML tags: <b> </b> <br> <br /> <a> </a> <em> </em> <strong> </strong> <cite> </cite>
<code> </code> <ul> </ul> <ol> </ol> <li> </li> <dl> </dl> <dt> </dt> <dd> </dd> <div> </div> <img>
<style> <font> </font> <blockquote> </blockquote> <hr>
Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Save Preview

6 of 6 20/12/16 15:34