> The equality of "abstract labor" per se is not what I am concerned
> about. It is the issue of the special structure of thinking about
> exchange in terms of an equality operator.
OK Steve, instead of 'abstract labour' let's call it 'value' or 'common
substance' or 'gloomph', or whatever you want. The concept of equality that
you are applying is, exchange at equal *something*. You interpret Marx's
use of the word 'equality', as meaning that something other than their
price is *numerically equal* in two commodities that exchange with each
other.
Yes or No? If No, what *is* your understanding of what Marx means by
'equality'?
Alan