Eubulides wrote:
>
>
> Fair enough, but they too would still need a definition of
> non-self-estrangement on which to base claims to compel-persuade others to
> cease the behavior that they assert results in said self-estrangement.
I quote only this snippet, and I give only snippets of a response. We'll see if it helps or hinders the discussion.
Apparently Marx considered it important to work out this business on self-estrangement _for his own purposes_. His published works (and even his later unpublished works) can be shown to be consistent with it, but that is all; they are intelligible without reference to the concept of self-estrangement. He did not think that convincing others on these issues was important enough to even try to develop a publishable version of the argument.
My personal response is that I couldn't care less whether or not these questions be resolved.
I quite seriously don't see why anyone should want to persuade or compel anyone that X results in self-estrangement. The concept remains important only as a private scribble of Marx's as he was working out his understanding of capitalism and the struggle against it.
Reporter: What is?
KM: Struggle.
I don't see how one can in any conceivable way go beyond that in response to the questions you raise about "who decides" or "how does one prove in advance" etc.
Carrol