Continuation of last message

Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:42:27 -0500
Charles Brown (charlesb@CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us)

Maybe this is your idea of externalized costs to women: the ability of the labor power in production to add more value to the commodities than the value that went into creating the labor power is because Marx fails to count the domestic labor that created the labor power commodity. The magical Marxian mind over matter of the human labor being the only force of production that adds more value to the commodity than went into making it. The housewifes labor is (underline) the source of the surplus value of the husband worker. This might be to radical but ..
Also, the main self-creating source, the original source of value is the house wife who has to care for herself and therefore creates her own labor power. I mean who else creates her labor power but her ? Should we add to a woman's work is never
done/ a woman is how work's begun ?
A little less dramatically, I said last time that Marx counted some domestic labor in valuing level of training in valuing different labor powers. However , that is "some" ,not "all" of the domestic labor value might be accounted for like that. But more importantly the domestic workers are not clearly paid, except in barter, in kind , and underpaid.
You say on page 8 "to Marx, domestic labor is not value-producing because it occurs in the private domain fo the family, and not in the public domain of production for the capitalist market place." Is there some place where he says exactly that ? Maybe it's the same bottomline logically, but I'm not sure its the location of the labor. He just becomes inconsistent. It is very critical for his overall theory that labor power is a commodity (as you note in your paper). The defining characteristic of a commodity is that it has exchange and use value. So the exchange value has to be added to this commodity somehow , and the inconsistency is he doesn't get much into this domestic labor which is the implied Fountain of Value in his theory. Maybe he saw the logical circle above ( woman as the spontaneous source of her own value; sounds good to me: woman worship) and he stayed a couple steps away from it . Of course every formal logic has a contradiction. Maybe this is the expression
of Russell's paradox or Goedel' proof in the formal logic of Capital.

Another way to say what I referred to as the communist correction of the problems caused by the abstractness of value under capitalism is that the goal is with socialism and communism for value to become less abstract and out of touch with and nature. Marx is making an objective interpretation and description of value under capitalism so that we can use that interpretation to change the world through practical-critical (revolutionary) activity. This aspect is an opening to optimizing ecology.
You might call it anthropocentric but I am an evolutionary ethicist (not evolutionary psychologist !) based on species-being which includes perpetuating our species. The most unusual thing I have to say on this is that species -being ethicism means we do have to get a new solar system home eventually because the sun is a star and will burn out (that's dialectics - everything is born lives and ends; and modern physics and astronomy)
By the way, all earthly species have to get a new home eventually, even Stephen Jay Gould's bacteria depend on the energy of the sun.
Please critique the above.

However, I do not think that