1) In Feminism and the Politics of the Common in an Era of Primitive Accumulation, Federici criticises the globalised economic model, favouring a localised 'collective' form of production. Whilst Federici certainly presents the downsides of globalisation, such as the crisis caused by the distancing of 'what is produced and what is consumed' (p.145), are there negative aspects to collectivisation? Would people living in areas with limited resources be at a disadvantage? How would these insular communities cope with global catastrophes? Is a globalised world fairer?

2) In Wages Against Housework, Federici emphasises the importance of a wage for housework, arguing that it would force 'capital to restructure social relations in terms more favourable to us' (p.19). In the years that have passed since Federici notes in Precarious Labour that 'work relations are becoming more discontinuous' (p.23) and fragmented with the line between labour and 'free time' becoming blurred, opening the labourer to exploitation. Housework already blurs the line between these two, as 'it is not the same as struggling on an assembly line [...] because at the other end of the struggle there are people not things' (p.24). By economising the process of childrearing, are we further exploiting women, by turning the relationship between a mother and child into an industrial process? Are there ways to avoid this?

3) Writing in 1975, in the piece titled Wages Against Housework, Federici views collectivised "housework" as empowering, whereas legislated ways of helping with childcare 'extend[s] the State's control over us' (p.21). Would collectivisation, however, work to undo the conviction instilled by Capital that housework for women is 'a natural, unavoidable and even fulfilling activity' (p.16). Was Fidel Castro right to deploy the 1975 Family Code, in which a married man and woman were required by law to share the housework equally? Is legislation a more powerful tool for social change, or is culture?