The USA threw 100k+ of its own citizens in concentration camps, stripping them of property and leaving them in poverty after the war. Not exactly a shining moment for principles.
Walmart makes over 200k in revenue per employee. Using profit to make your point is not applicable if honest. Otherwise you would advise Amazon to cease hiring altogether in all those years they were seemingly losing money per employee.
I cannot cite a universally accepted definition of anything. That is an impossible standard and I'm sure nothing I say will satisfy you. The only help I can offer you here is to question the neutrality of that link.
You've got it backwards. Toxic masculinity is exactly the avoidance of vulnerability and emotional openness you praise, not horsing around with your buds.
You don't have to guess on the definition by the way, as academic terms tend to be well explicated.
Something important to understand is that the hard sciences are more rigorous, but that's because they're easier to model than what the social sciences have to deal with. The naming is confusing.
If you're going to be this sort of fierce nerd, make sure you come from money, because you're getting fired if you pursue these traits in the workplace.
Astronomy and agriculture are celebrated because their advances make the world better in some broader sense. That broader sense, good as such, is the scope of morality.
I'm guessing your questions are facetious, but in case you seriously care, the nature of morality has been the subject of intensive research for thousands of years, including today. It predates even the concept of measurement, in fact.
Technical goals are means to moral ends, so I think it's great that the stuff that matters, the big picture, the point of it all, is getting more discussion nowadays.
I'm not disagreeing with you or defending Marx, only pointing out a common misconception. Marx's project is frequently misunderstood.
> but the value of all goods derive from their use
That's the definition of value economists adopt today following the marginal revolution, just as artificial as Marx's definition of value, which he qualifies as use-value or exchange-value. Marginalism is a great descriptive explanation for situations like the diamond-water paradox, but it is not really relevant to Marx's prescriptive project, as it concerns only what Marx calls use-value, and Marx's project very much relies on exploring this distinction he identifies between use-value and exchange-value. Whether that exploration is correct or important is another question, but I hate seeing this confusion of definitions and goals crop up all the time. Marx doesn't hold all these obviously stupid straw men views people ascribe to him regarding (use-)value, rather he thinks that the way we conceive of value should be rethought.
Are you aware of what happened to the landlords in China or do you mean the landlords weren't human?