> "Perhaps. But in any case irrelevant to the claims
>about the 'equalizing' properties of exchange Marx advances in
>Chapter 1, which is my point."
Andrew writes:
>This is still more question-begging.
I don't see this. The thought experiment (all of it, not just the phrase
singled out above) was constructed to show that commodity exchange cannot
be validly understood to yield Marx's inference that "a common element of
identical magnitude" exists in exchanged bundles, except perhaps as a
simple tautology. The argument may be wrong, but how exactly does it beg
the question?
Gil