Gil writes: "This begs the central question at hand by assuming
what must be proved, that is, that there is a (not simply
tautological) axiom system which can support Marx's argument that
exchange establishes something "equal" in a sense adequate to
support his conclusion that abstract social labor is in some sense
the basis of exchange value."
It seems to me that *this* begs the central issue at hand. In OPE-L
584, I argued in some detail that Marx did NOT argue that "exchange
establishes something 'equal'." So Gil is assuming what must be
proved, namely that my interpretation of Marx's argument is false
and his own interpretation is true.