Being pretty innocent of technical knowledge in economics I would not venture to comment on the economics if this, but a couple historical points.
The distinction might have made more sense when a huge sector of the work force was made up of domestic servants (and when far more 'production' of use values went on in the home). Also it would seem relevant in the light of Fredy Perlman's argument (in his commentary on Rubin) that the theory of value was concerned not with prices at all but with (nearly exact quote from memory) how living human activity is distributed under give historical conditions. If that is one's focus, then it might be useful to identify at least roughly the human activity which is either "non-capitalist" (home labor) or concerned with the division among capitalists of surplus value rather than creation of it. Carrol
