no, i still use an electronic tuner with my acoustic guitar. but i can feel the body vibrating differently when i get close to being in tune vs being a semitone off
depends on the instrument. with acoustic instruments the resonance chamber is often tuned so that you can feel the body itself vibrating more when you're in tune
again, marx didnt see it as a fixed pie. thats the whole reason behind his idea of absolute vs relative surplus value, is that the pie isn't fixed. he absolutely saw the (at his time) modern capitalist economy as a revolutionary, dynamic force that brought about a great increase in the absolute amount of productive capacity and wealth in the world
theres nothing to rebut. you made an assertion thats false on the face of it and posted a link to something totally unrelated. it's so wrong i dont even know which part you're misunderstanding.
but one of the core ideas of marx's conception of history is that human needs, wants, and human nature itself are constantly in a state of change and that those needs and desires are in large part a product of the environment in which you live, and further that humans and human society in turn change their own environments which in turn change human nature itself
well, china also has gigantic northern and western regions that cannot be forested. the us doesn't have an equivalent of the tibetan plateau or the gobi desert
> It was the same thing with the Soviet union, was it ever really successful at any point?
yes. the soviet union was wildly successful for most of its history. it went from a backwater poor agrarian country to an industrial superpower near peer with the US in a single generation, while simultaneously going through multiple brutal wars and crushing nazi germany at immense cost. despite all that, the soviet union had the fastest and greatest economic and quality of life rise of any country in the 20th century.
of course it had problems that led to its collapse but you cannot be serious and say it was never successful at any point
this article is trivial nonsense. of course he's technically correct, but the article contains no useful information and boils down to just saying that people (including doctors) aren't looking at literally only 5 year survival rate charts.
like the colon cancer thing. he talks about how it would only be more effective to catch colon cancer early if you assume we have treatments for it that would work early. but we don't need to just assume blindly. we already know we do have those treatments!
there really are far fewer homeless people in china than there are in america. it's not just that they're out of sight, it literally is much less of a problem to begin with. you can't try to equate these things