What part of nobody expects everyone to use a bike do you not understand?

I don't care about the people who cannot use a bike. What I do care about is that the people who can start doing so.

You’d need to be in a dense area (city)

So? You make that sound like it's a rare exception. Plenty of people living in dense cities, let's start there.

If you’ve ever built something

I guess the carpenter in the example I gave you who started with one bike, now has three, and says it heavily reduced their use of cars hasn't built anything at all in his life...

Ever seen pictures and movies (yes, they exist) before cars were the norm? Streets were for people. People were not "crossing" the road, they walked on the road. People walked everywhere.

Ah, you're a troll, thx for letting us know.

The lead authours stated personal goal is to increase proportion of bicycle use from 8% to 25%

Yes, scientists have opinions and agendas.

Only that you maybe shouldn't be so quick to shit on the guy who raised his eyebrow

They. Did. Not. Read. The. Study.

They, in essence, did a study that "confirmed" that they themselves are better people than 92% of the population.

Look, if you want to dismiss a study, do so, I couldn't care less. But so far you both haven't brought anything but ad hominem against the authors.

I'm not really a bike person (yet, anyways)

Have a look at cargo bikes, they've diversified greatly over the last ~5 years. For example, there's models now that are smaller than a regular bike, way more nimble than a regular cargo bike, but still quite versatile if you don't need to carry three children and the kitchen sink, eg yoonit (they're a German company, not sure about availability elsewhere).

Now look, I'm not a bus commuter, but I've been riding buses all over Europe and beyond, and I immediately just hold onto anything that's in reach.

As a matter of fact, as long as there's not a visibly old/pregnant/disabled/etc person around, I'll make sure getting a seat no matter what and something to hold onto.

At this point I'm quite certain there's a secret society of bus drivers with chapters all over the world, and their motto is "drive like there's no tomorrow" and they all have "NO FUTURE" tattoed in huge black capital letters on their chests.

Les poules couvent souvent au couvent.

Yeah, you absolutely need a wankpanzer to install a child seat 🤡

So, just to let you know before I block you utter , I was reading Marx when you were just a wet spot, and I actually do happen to „like“ him. But funny that you only now come quoting him, after I handed you half of the exact quote you’re giving. But I’m the one scouring Wikipedia 😂

That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism.

But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

🥱

And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling

It’s rather baffling that you, considering orthodox Marxism „true communism“, would think that. What kind of „economic system“ did Marx promote? And where do I find that in the Manifest?

Are you referring to central planning? That’s a feature of Soviet style communism, it was invented at the beginning of the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, Marx actually had little to say about how a post-capitalist society should actually look like, besides some commonplace quotes like „production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production“, which is neither original nor chiefly communist.

describe a full featured system that covered it all

Yeah, and do you know what the system Marx wrote about was? It was capitalist society. Marx was an analyst.

If you knew what Marx actually wrote and thought, you’d find that he was heavily influenced by classic economists like Adam Smith and was rather fond of free trade (as were his peers).

Also you’re completely wrong about:

You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

Again, you would need to specify what exactly you mean, but there’s not much that hasn‘t existed short of taking full control of the market. Pre-neoliberal Europe was quite heavily invested in state owned companies and production, France had for most of the post-war era what can be classified as centrally planned economy.

You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting.

Another mistake you make: I’m not infighting. I’m merely calling out the bullshit you hand out as „ELI5“, because quite frankly you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you call „base or true communism“ in the first place.

G‘day.

Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)/¯

But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

Aha, is that so?

I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well

Yeah, you could say that!

So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L'Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.

And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔

Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?

Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.

And 7/200 is 3.5%, maybe you should read that article again…