Gabital - Fantasy Capitalism 101 [Ongoing]

Posted on 14 July 2026, 15:26 by: onenightes

Uploader Comment

https://boosty.to/gabiconomics-en

Posted on 10 December 2024, 23:48 by: Thoromuerte

Anti-capitalist message, now on your favourite porn site!

Approved! :D

Posted on 11 December 2024, 01:41 by: SomeGuy91

actually, its very pro capitalist. "if you dont like the way it is, just do it yourself."
what it really doesnt like is CRONY capitalism where established buisness owners get special deals.

Posted on 11 December 2024, 02:50 by: Genoshia

@Thoromuerte This is pretty much exclusively pro-capitalism. Under capitalism, the correct solution to a bad boss is to stop working for them. The systems shown also allow Gabi to start her own business, instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.
Even her old boss takes the capitalist route in competing with her-so far-by trying to leverage his existing wealth as a means to out compete her. Instead of lobbying additional license requirements that ensures only his wheels are 'government approved,' which is how you'd compete in a more socialist system.

This doesn't denounce capitalism; It highlights the traps and pitfalls of it, shows how to get around them, and points out how capitalism is enabling the option to combat corruption by just being a better business.

Posted on 12 December 2024, 23:59 by: Hitman1826

Goddamn, dude. This is just bad propaganda lol. Literally every page is either just flatout wrong, strawmanning, and/or not completely understanding the concepts it tries to demonstrate lol.

Posted on 22 December 2024, 14:07 by: Pedrobeartimon

Communists do such a good job at proving capitalism to be a better financial system

Posted on 23 December 2024, 12:01 by: thatguy26

buncha gonner dipshits in the comments simping for the system that exploits them lmao

Posted on 23 December 2024, 14:47 by: Pedrobeartimon

thatguy26 acting like needing to take action yourself to fix a problem that you want fixed is wrong and other people should just do it for you

Posted on 23 December 2024, 18:31 by: AbusePuppy

@SomeGuy91

"Crony capitalism" isn't a real thing, it's what people simping for capitalism say to defend it. Same as folks saying "but the Soviet Union/CCCP/etc wasn't REAL communism!" as a way to try and sidestep the discussion. All capitalism is inherently nepotistic, and it's always gonna result in Good Ol' Boys power structures wherein the rich and hyper-rich conspire to protect their own interests at the expense of everyone else and of society in general. That is what the system does, and how it's designed to work.

@Genoshia
>instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.

What... economic structures do you know of that would prohibit the starting of businesses? I feel like that would be a pretty obvious problem for any kind of economic theory that tried to practice it. Even the most authoritarian of command economies usually only dictate specific sectors and/or products, rather than a ban on what sort of businesses are allowed to exist.

Posted on 24 December 2024, 07:08 by: Genoshia

@AbusePuppy Both socialism and communism hold strict control over what businesses are and are not allowed to operate. Under a socialist economic structure, businesses are required to meet strict, government-enforced requirements in order to be allowed to operate. Gabi would have met none of them, as she did not have land rights for her business from the city, any sort of licensing for operation, and certainly did not obtain any form of license in regards to hiring other employees.
Those things were eventually forced upon her, but under a socialist system she would have faced massive fines and possibly worse penalties for not having already met them in the first place. This is because socialism, in practice, makes it extremely difficult for any entity that does not already have power to start their own business, as they're expected to meet criteria already existing conglomerates are able to meet only due to existing hordes of capital to carry them through these processes when they're not earning income. This is why many American businesses fail to break into European markets, and why many entrepreneurs prefer to move to America to start small businesses.
While it can be argued-it varies between specific systems-that these restrictions are a benefit to the workers, it is just a fact that they prohibit the creation of new businesses in ways that capitalism does not.

And while Gabi MIGHT have been able to start a competing business under a socialist structure-she very definitely would have needed a great deal more start up capital than she is shown as having in this comic, and the comic would have needed to explain a great deal more bureaucracy before getting to the actual business portion-under a communist structure, she simply could not have.
Competing businesses do not exist under communist structures. Under a communist structure, individuals are not allowed to own their own business, as they have no rights to their own labor. All things are owned by the collective, i.e. the government. As there is an already established and existing business to provide the exact service she wants to offer-someone she would be competing with, for profit-she would first have to show that her business provides something to the community it is not already being provided by Chief's business. It's literally the same business, using methods he's already using to create goods he's already creating. As such, Gabi would not have been allowed the rights to property-which would be owned by the government-the materials-also own by the government-or the labor-again, government owned-to open her business. Very likely, she would not even been allowed to quit, as under most communist systems blue-collar labor such as hers is assigned to citizens by the government, often via lottery, and as such they are not allowed to just quit working them.

Posted on 08 January 2025, 23:25 by: Unwanted Miles

To aliviate the tension of the discussion above...

Am I the only one who gets Primis Richtofen vibes from the boss guy?

Posted on 08 January 2025, 23:36 by: ehcks

So when is this stupid little goblin whore going to be raped and left in the gutter filled with cum from 10+ different guys?

Posted on 10 January 2025, 20:58 by: Mason2

Goblin cute. Hope succeed.

Posted on 18 January 2025, 13:08 by: heretic1311

@AbusePuppy Capitalism isn´t "inherently nepotistic", POWER STRUCTURES are, you get nepotism in socialism and monarchism just as much as in capitalism.
If Capitalism is anything "inherently", then it´s MERITOCRATIC, and the socialist types hate that as it´s exclusive, making people unequal.
Monarchism CAN be meritocratic, but few monarchs are wise enough to make it work properly.

Key with the whole concept of Politics as a whole is that all boils down to a really simple idea: who owns what. That´s what politics is by definition.
And there are three big ideas on how it´s don:
1: first and oldest is Monarchism, the idea that everything belongs to ONE, usually the strongest and he decides how things are distributed
2: second, born as the exact opposite to Monarchism, is Socialism (the oldest form i know are the early Christians), it is the idea that EVERYONE owns EVERYTHING
3: the youngest form, mostly a result of the movement we call the "Enlightenment", Capitalism is the idea that you own the fruits of your labor and are free to exchange them at your own free will with others, hence referred to as "Free Market"

Each of these basic forms has a LOT of variations in which is was attempted to implement them.

And i REALLY didn´t expect a political discussion on a PORN SITE O.o

Posted on 19 January 2025, 04:29 by: Ignitation

This is great.. I've actually learning alot about business (Beat going to the business school, But also realize why these schools are so damn popular too). Also I get it now why there are so much bandit, highwaymen or smuggler to begin with in first place. The system totally crushing the "little guys" to the point they can't dare to hope on resurfacing from the system!!

Also I can see many "opportunities" for an easy favors to be taken on business dealing and how these plot point can be very relevant to the story progression as well.

Posted on 19 January 2025, 06:21 by: RabidTanker

Come to think of it, has anyone ever did an thesis entirely through an comic?

Posted on 19 January 2025, 09:41 by: Genoshia

Ah yes, a classic depiction of the Socialist ideal! Starting a socialist system, not by going somewhere free of industry and starting from the ground up, but by operating as a single socialist entity within an existing capitalist structure.
Handily side-steps the inherent negative of a fully socialist structure dealing poorly with bad actors by giving the illusion that the bad actors only exist as employers in other companies. Surely no one with bad intentions would abuse this structure Gabi is creating by, say, getting a bunch of their friends to sign on and then vote Gabi and Falke out of the company so that they essentially steal all the wealth the two invested in the company initially. Especially not just as a means to sell everything the two worked hard to create and produce by themselves to competition to make quick cash.
Obviously, scam-artists only exist at the business-owner level, and no lower!

Posted on 01 February 2025, 21:28 by: JunkAlot

Politics? On my porn site?

Although, the goblin girls are kind of cute. I can fap to this.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 10:07 by: Villhadig

@RabidTanker Don't think anyone has ever done their *own* thesis through a comic (except maybe Fisk who loves to preach libertarianist bullshit through his "THIS IS ACTUAL LIFE" comics) but there is manga and comic versions of works of Marx and Lenin certainly.

Nice little comic, though it right now sidesteps the realities of the impossibility of building a socialist structure within capitalism where capitalism can outmanouver collective businesses through practices like deflation of price etc. I do hope we will see the comic ending with just outright goblin revolution and expropriation of the "chiefs" wealth into the hands of the laborers.

I disagree with people saying it is pro-capitalist. It shows a lot of the inherent issues of capitalism and while Gabi and her team is trying to work around it, they meet constant institutional hurdles that are designed to work against them and for the already established upper class. What remains to be seen is if the comic ends with a social democratic message or actual socialist message.

Last edited on 05 February 2025, 10:29.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 19:15 by: Saladburger

Anti-capitalist message on a site where people advertise their Patreon for first-try AI art which required 2 prompts.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 02:08 by: letarumavza

@Saladburger : porn is great at creating a common ground for political, cultural and social diversity. People are way more inclusive when they are horny. It doesn't mean you don't encounter the occasional more vocal than numerous dumb and hateful asshole tho, but most of the time these toxic fucks can be shamed into oblivion.

In the end, and excepting some pricks, most people just want everyone to be happy and in good health and friction only comes from what it means and how to achieve that goal. Even people who describe themselves as individualist would not let somebody they know suffer when they can do something. Pure hate is noisy but marginal and I do think porn is a great tool to create understanding, because everyone can understand somebody else fapping.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 05:11 by: Pedrobeartimon

@letarumavza the issue is when people are forced to provide for others, rather than allowed to do so of their own accord.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 10:19 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Gabi reaches the Sam Vimes stage of class consciousness: Boots.

Posted on 21 February 2025, 14:48 by: Villhadig

@Pedrobeartimon
Are we talking about socialism or capitalism here? Cause if we were to look at the relation of people with production in capitalism you would be pretty much describing it spot on. A mass of people are forced to provide for the wealth of others (the small minority of owners of production). Many might say "Oh but it is a choice you make to work for them, you can just chose not to work there at all." but this is just plain false, how much freedom of choice do we have really under capitalism? We have a set of very basic needs we need to fullfill: food and shelter. In a capitalist society both of these require money as the absolute vast majority of people do not have the means of self-sufficiency. Land is often privately or state owned which prohibits hunting or foraging from them by the public and is expensive to buy something you could realistically survive off on, so there isn't really much choice not to work for a wage to survive, not to mention even if you own a land there are costs involved to actually building a shelter then on it.

So we need to work to make a wage to eat and live. We don't really have much of a choice in capitalism, it's either sell our labour for cheap to the rich or starve. That's not a choice, that's a gun put to our head by the capitalists, a gun that won't kill us instantly but slowly starve us to death instead if we don't abide by their rules. Is that truly then any different from the nightmare image people have of having to work under socialism?

"Why not open your own business?" is a common question, most of which is pretty much answered in this very comic: it's hard to compete in a market especially where we have such advanced production techniques that massive corporations can produce everything at a vastly cheaper price in massive amounts to fullfill needs. You need to then be fullfilling a very specific marketable niche which, let's be absolutely real here, most of us have not the skill for. So then it's wage labour for most of us.

"Why not work somewhere else for better pay?" That is just switching which exploiter I sell my labour to and the reality is for the vast majority of us, we can't afford to take that risk of saying "No, I don't want this job and I am simply gonna go somewhere else". Many people live on paycheck to paycheck now in this economy. Kicking your job to hope to find another with an uncertain timeframe as to when you will ever get a new one is too risky of a gamble for more and more people.

So, in the end, I dunno exactly what your argument is but if it's that people would be "forced" to provide for others under socialism (which is a scaremonger argument from capitalists): we are forced to make a tiny minority of people rich today, how is that any better?

Posted on 04 March 2025, 23:33 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig The difference is pretty much what you described; Under capitalism, even if the choices are not always ideal, they still exist. Under communism* that choice is removed. You do not get to decide who you work for, regardless of whether or not the compensation for your labor fails to meet your needs, because you don't own the rights to your own labor under that structure.
Capitalism doesn't promise that you'll succeed if you try to start your own business, or if you give up your job to find a better one. It only promises that you will have the option to try. What you seem to be failing to realize is just how highly the majority of people value having that option.
The main reason for this, of course, being that basically any alternative system will not be led by omniscient beacons of moral purity. They will be led by other people, and the instant one of those people proves themselves to be a bad actor, the entirety of the system will suffer for it. At the end of the conversation, most people would rather gamble on their own efforts and actions deciding their fate, than leaving it in the hands of a gaggle of people whom they've never met, and whom also have an active and obvious incentive to abuse their power for self gain.

*What you're calling socialism, despite the fact that the majority of socialist countries in the world today are actively embracing capitalist economic structures, because rebranding communism as socialism is a classic communist tactic

Posted on 05 March 2025, 09:10 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia
Lets adress the last comment, my supposed disingenuous "rebranding" of communism as socialism. In Marxist theory socialism and communism are inseparable stages of social development. They are not separate ideologies of economic ideas but stepping stones of one to the next. Marx and Engels defined socialism as the first post-revolutionary step after capitalism when the working class takes over the means of production from the capitalist class. Under socialism you still have many of the old capitalist structures like money, the state, class differences etc. but now with the proletariat (the working class) in control of state and production, the goal becomes to erode the differences that exists of the classes. Unlike the anarchist ideas that you are supposed to immediately destroy everything related to capitalism in order to bring about the utopia of tomorrow, socialism is using the capitalist structure, now under democratic rule rather than the rule of the bourgeoisie, to enrich and better the lives of everyone more equally (not completely equally, we will get to that) to work towards communism. During socialism you would have a stage where to fulfil the needs of people using the capitalist structure we still need a lot of specialists and their knowledge, for a time we would for example probably still compensate their labour with higher wages in order to convince them to keep working their specialised tasks while we also educated more people to be able to fulfil the same roles as they got (with for example the now socialised education giving people easier access to higher education). We could lower the work hours per week by employing more people into jobs we actually need them for while automating more and more menial labour we know we can get rid of but still pay everyone the same wage since nobody enrich themselves anymore on just owning the production (the previous bourgeoisie class who now also becomes laborers).

Now, communism within marxist theory is the final stage of Marxism, communism means "stateless and classless society". When you know have made everyone the same class, proletariats, with the same relation to production you no longer have any classes in society. You have reached a classless world where nobody exploits the other but we depend on each other to fulfil our needs. In marxist theory, and this is the kicker where a lot of our education completely lies to our face about what marxism and communism is, the state is not a goal. The state IS the enemy. Marxism explains that the state only exists to enforce the class society by using either economic or physical violence through what we nowadays call "the state monopoly on violence" to keep the lower classes in check for the benefit of the upper classes. Communism as I mentioned means also "stateless" society, what that means that when you have achieved a classless society, the reason of the states existence to enforce the class society ceases to exist and the state becomes meaningless. Marx, Engels, Lenin and many more explained that at this stage of socialism, when classes no longer exist, the state fulfils no longer a function and it's only purpose now is to slowly wither away as the people no longer need it.

To summarize: socialism and communism is the two stages marxist development post-capitalism towards a stateless and classless society. They are not separate, they are in fact part of the same idea where one, socialism, is a stepping stone towards the next, communism. Those countries you think of today calling them "socialist" like Sweden or Norway, are not socialist for the working class are not the ones who own the means of production but they have a very rich and increasingly powerful bourgeoisie class who owns them. They are what we would call welfare capitalist states. And they are all failing as you cannot reform capitalism to a better, more equal society as that runs opposite to the nature of capitalism which is monopolized industries and wealth concentration in the hands of the upper class. It is arguable even that countries like China are not socialism as they too have a bourgeoisie upper class who owns the means of production. They performatively occasionally execute a billionaire who cheat the system, but they still allow the existence of a exploitative billionaire class. Hence why China too also need a second revolution to overthrow the upper class and take control of the production.

As for the rest of the comment:
In socialism, and more importantly communism, we would probably get rid of so many menial and useless jobs (either cause they are completely redundant or that we can use automate them) that we could lower our work hours to first 6 hours a day, then 4, then 2, maybe even less. You would have more choice than ever what you do with your life. If you felt a job you did wasn't right for you, there would be all the reason that you could get another to do instead that was better suited to your skills cause that would just be plain more productive use. In your now increased free time, you could now chose to do even more work (if you'd like) or do other fulfilling tasks and hobbies that meant more to yourself. We have so much potential as people that are completely wasted away cause we are chained to our work for our survival that drains us of our energy. As someone said: think of all the Mozarts, Rembrandts, Picassos, Da Vincis who are working on pig farms. A waste of their talents cause they need to work to survive where art does not pay.

Capitalism promises that hard and dedicated work will pay off. We have billions who work harder than any of the richest of the rich with multiple jobs, toiling for sometimes 16 hours to make ends meet and never get out of poverty for it. It is an absolute blatant lie that we are sold. Capitalism is but a lottery for the fraction of a fraction of us to succeed and it is rigged against us by the people who already exist at the top.

Your worry that if in any alternative system we are not led by some "beacon of moral purity" it collapses, we already live in that system. We are led by capitalist barons who through nepotism don't give their wealth and control to whoever is best suited but to their families. We live under no different rule with how our massive, world spanning corporations are run than through the same biological lottery that feudal kingdoms had when handing over their kingdoms to their inbred sons. Sure, we vote for out politicians who supposedly control our nations but all of them in a bourgeoisie democracy look to please the same class above the rest, the bourgeoisie. The rest of us are nowhere nearly as important as we don't own the economy, we don't own the media, we don't own the corporations that provide the jobs for the rest of us to sustain on. What socialism asks for is not a system of placing some benevolent ruler on top, but that we have a true democracy run by the people where we all together make choices how to run society, not career politicians.

My apologies for the long comment but I believe proper, patient explanation is warranted in these discussions.

Last edited on 05 March 2025, 11:46.

Posted on 13 March 2025, 22:53 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig I'm going to stop you at your second line; Your argument is predicated on sighting Karl Marx as an authority on socialism and communism. He isn't. Communism, as an economic principal, existed well before Marx. I will not argue that he did not have an impact on how people view communism in the modern day, as he Did do that, but his ideas only impacted modern communism. They do not define it, and going forward under the assumption that Marx is the only authority is baseless. It does not mean 'stateless and classless society,' as Marx described it, because you can have both authoritarian and libertarian versions of communist societies. Communism, as defined in its modern usage, just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens. If you do not accept that fact, you're not unlike the majority of communist supporters, but you're also not a realist and I don't deal with fanatics.

Socialism, especially, existed long before Marx and calling him an authority on modern socialist ideals is laughably incorrect. Contrary to the tale you're actively trying to spin, socialism can easily exist under both authoritarian and libertarian principals, and modern socialist policies can easily exist within an otherwise largely capitalist society. Socialist parties and people have been aiming towards more socialist societies without the ultimate goal of achieving communism for literal centuries. This conversation is not a black-and-white one, as many people who use the exact rhetoric you're exhibiting try to make it out to be. Much the same way as there is no 'pure' capitalist society in the modern world, no one is attempting to achieve a 'pure' socialist or communist society. Some people, like you, might advocate for one, but no government on the planet is actually moving in that direction.

What you're actively trying to do is re-brand the terms to mean something they don't mean, in practice, because you don't like how the modern world uses them in comparison to the Marxist fantasy world he conjured up to promote his ideals. Marxism will never come to pass, because once you hit the Billions of people mark, there's no way that you'll achieve any form of economic activity without distributing resources according to Some individual or groups authority on deciding who gets what, because there are resources on this planet that are limited and some group that has 'need' of them will always go without.
Not even mentioning all the other pitfalls Marx's fantasy world could never over come for practical reasons, like bad actors within the society.

Moving on:
You're also wrong about capitalism; Capitalism doesn't promise anything, it's an economic system that just means wealth is distributed based on a free market. Proponents of capitalism under a more authoritarian society uphold it, not as an ideal economic system, but as the best available to us as a result of innate human flaws. The main 'upside' of authoritarian capitalism-a free market with restrictions placed on it by a government to ensure the market remains actually free, and not dominated by monopoly-is that it always offers the individual the freedom to choose.
You are not guaranteed a fortune in exchange for hard work; You're also not guaranteed poverty if you never work a day in your life. All you are guaranteed is the option to decide what You do with Your labor, and Your money.
Unfortunately, humans are flawed, and some will devote their labor to endeavors that will not result in great wealth, or even really much wealth at all. Likewise, there are those who will decide to devote their wealth to their children in the form of handing them a business they worked hard to create without any guarantee that said business will flourish under their child's ownership. This creates a host of problems, of course, but that's the price of giving people the freedom to choose. Some people will make poor decisions; However, that will be true regardless of what type of economic system we live in.
Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where I own my own labor, and how I spend my labor and the wealth generated by it is my decision. The fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist-is the main reason Marx's fantasy will never come to pass. Even if you somehow created that system, eventually generations will pass and more people will be born who want the rights to their labor back.

Posted on 14 March 2025, 09:26 by: UnknownVariableA

In this comments thread, people are clearly getting worked up over nothing instead of just enjoying the artist's work.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 10:41 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia
Absolute nonsense of an argument. Marx is absolutely the modern authority on the ideas of socialism and communism, his ideas and analysis shaped the movement and all who came after him. Yes, socialism is as you say older than Marx, the ideas had existed before him but we called those people utopians for they only had a vision but no analysis of how getting to that vision. Marx made socialism a science and dedicated his life along with Engels to discern how the working class could reach it.

What libertarian principles could socialism or communism possibly exist under? The definition of it according to you is "just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens", libertarianism is the ideology of the liberals but just more insane and more freedom to exploit others. Nothing can be distributed equally either under libertarianism. It is the ideology of people who want to own businesses and be sure that NOBODY interferes in it. It is the private ownership of the means of production that creates the inequality in society which libertarianism just enhances tenfold and with any form of libertarianism, socialism and communism cannot be achieved.

Your argument for capitalism just presents it as a massive lottery, where uncertainty is just the only constant, what is the purpose then of it? Why have such an anarchistic system of economic society dominate us? It is nothing then but a system of complete chaos that utterly ruins billions of people across the world while benefitting the few, that is an even greater argument for it's abolishment.

Also, nice rephrase calling it "human flaws" instead of just saying the usual "human nature", it means the same in this context. You use yourself as evidence as a "fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist". That is exactly what anthropology is for, we have studied multiple human cultures and society across the globe and people like you *do not* exist in those were we do not have private ownership. You are but a product of the material conditions of society around you, one of capitalism, greed and culture of individualism. If we change that society people like you would absolutely be phased out of existence.

I am not gonna continue this conversation, you have clearly, absolutely no idea what you are talking about trying to tell others what is and isn't marxism, socialism and communism and continuing to speak with you is utterly meaningless. You have already outed yourself as a libertarian. You wanna talk about fanaticism? Fanaticism is the incessant upholding of a system of exploitation because your belief is that "there is nothing better". You are literally the reactionary of this conversation, cowardly holding onto oppression because it benefits *you* while the majority of the world suffers for it. Absolutely pathetic.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 18:09 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
Just a minor correction but libertarian was originally a socialist term. It was co-opted by hypercapitalists in the US so there the association is with the ideology you understand it to mean.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 21:51 by: Villhadig

@adamnemo42
Originally yes, but the discussion was how we see the ideologies today. Hence why I reject their argument of Marx not being an authority of the definitions of socialism and communism for that is how modern socialism and communism today now is defined by. And libertarians, as you say, are now hypercapitalists like Milei and have nothing in common with the left.

Posted on 16 March 2025, 07:22 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
I mean there are still people who use the term "libertarian socialism" to describe ideological positions that align with the anarchism side of socialism and libertarian is still fairly commonly used outside the US in its original left-wing meaning. That said it is true that in the modern American understanding of what libertarian means vs socialism then yes they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. And of course Marx is such an influential writer that modern definitions and discussions of socialism and communism have been shaped by his work.

Last edited on 23 March 2025, 05:01.

Posted on 14 April 2025, 15:09 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Fantasy pinkertons inbound?

Posted on 28 April 2025, 03:25 by: redstonemm

I want to see spicy stuff in this, put some horny content in

Posted on 06 May 2025, 17:42 by: Neeckin

This is kind of a depressing read I'll be honest

Posted on 06 May 2025, 18:02 by: againagainagain

I love the internet

Posted on 06 May 2025, 21:09 by: Villhadig

@redstonemm Nah, let the socialist tiddy goblins cook. They have important experiences to tell people.

@Neeckin Capitalism is depressing.

Posted on 13 May 2025, 12:50 by: Neeckin

Dude crossed the picket line and gave their wheel design to the enemy? Good way to get your legs busted walking home at night

Posted on 13 May 2025, 17:07 by: dagger69

@Genoshia bro's really trying to define communism as a capitalist realist? Quite a task, like a clown fitting into a tiny car with twenty others.

"not as an ideal economic system, but as the best available to us as a result of innate human flaws" and would you look at that! An expert in philosophy too! At least enough to know the absolute best possible system of economic production and distribution for humanity, out of an endless series of possibilities, the majority of which haven't yet been conceived of, AND that it's the one we're currently living in, isn't that convenient?

I mean, it's all so obvious, after all/S

Posted on 14 May 2025, 00:54 by: dsadsadsadsa

Is he doing the fucking Freddie Mercury pose on page 49?

Posted on 17 May 2025, 21:45 by: Villhadig

@dagger69
What's funnier is that the wank actually first posted that the comic is "pro-capitalism", even as the first pages started showing all the flaws within the system and features a goblin waving a red flag as cover. And for some reason if you're pro-socialist/communist there is a bunch of people who clearly come in to downvote you just for the sake of it, they are not reading this comic at all or actually like what it is telling.

Posted on 19 May 2025, 21:43 by: jlt314

As a minor point, the "Chief" is a too literal translation of "шеф". "Boss" would be more accurate.
Also, Gabi's full name is "Gabital", pun on "Capital" by Marx intended according to the author.
Also note the "education" and "corruption" pages. BTW, the translators skipped the pages dedicated to Labour Day (May 1St) and Victory Day (May 9th).

Posted on 20 May 2025, 00:53 by: Draupnir7

So... where is the consumer choice? I'm noticing a lack of that, as though a lower price is an inviolable natural force of attraction for coin and not one data point of several that informs a purchase.
Am I also to assume that nobody in the city observed the pricing war occur, let alone the fell-out-of-the-Antagonists-R-Us-bargain-bin-lookin'-ass caricature posing obnoxiously? Or that if someone did notice it, they drew no conclusions? Appearance is also a data point, and the owner of a company conducting himself like a twat in public is a strong one, and would turn people off from a purchase. Unless you remove the concept of consumer choice.

Posted on 20 May 2025, 10:24 by: rocketdrive

There are people who still buy kanye west merch and songs after he fully embraced being a nazi. There are also those who got more interested because he embraced being a nazi.

Both invalidate your point on "bad behavior discourages sales" remark @draupnir7

Posted on 21 May 2025, 11:54 by: Villhadig

Not to mention that consumer choice is only a choice for the people with more disposable income, this is only valid in a society where we are paid a fair share for our labour and can afford to be picky. For a lot of people, it's no choice but to find the cheapest options that they can afford no matter who the supposed brand is in order to make ends meet. And speaking of, brands also have a massive influence in our choice where we often pick familiar brands we know and recognise, not to mention that often multiple "competing" brands are often owned by the same conglomerates that it absolutely matters not who you buy it from, the money goes into the same pocket.

Posted on 28 May 2025, 17:32 by: 写生战士

Jesus Christ I'm so fucking want to fuck her with my fucking hard dick

Posted on 31 May 2025, 21:01 by: william1024

Page 38 (image 42): Ah, the good old Vimes Boot Theory.

Posted on 31 May 2025, 23:47 by: Dynamite Ninja

Gabi is gonna encounter the key problem in any collective - size.
If she's successful, she should be expanding her business to capitalise on her success. The fact she gets to any success means she is a logical actor who would make that decision, and if she isn't, other members of the collective would push for this because, net, they are logical.
Size leads to complexity as more functions are performed. After a certain point, managing the whole group is impossible for a single manager, and administrative systems are formed to deal with this.
This is precisely the time when contrary interests begin to emerge - the presence of administration, whatever form it takes (bureaucracy, democracy, collectivism, whathaveyou), means there is a simple mechanism to affect the dynamics of the whole system. A self interested entity who can understand this administration sufficiently - play the politics - can begin to adjust it for their own end, thus the interests of the collective do not align with the interests of the individual.
This can be divided into two cases - either the collective is unopposed, or there exist other entities the collective engages with. In the former, collective performance may reward someone less than them absorbing functions in the hierarchy to enable corruption outside "fair" system set up for them. Thus a de-facto, but not de-jure external entity is formed, necessarily parasitic. Any communist government expresses this, with the famous maddening politics and corruption of "the party". In the latter, betrayal of the collective to an external aggressor may become quite beneficial.
This is resolved well with the company cooperating on a spinout, if possible - to make the external de-jure. In this case, a new entity is formed with its own incentives, but the original collective aligns its interests with the new one. There are numerous ways to achieve this, including rent, shares, client relationships, etc. Here we run into the problem of socialism - it denies this option.
Each mechanism of multi-entity alignment is a capitalistic one, where the work produced by one entity is converted into abstract tokens and traded to another. This abstractification and free dynamics is important because it permits freedom of the entities that can be generated, while minimising administrative overhead to just managing the abstract object, permitting entities to specialise and thus making this system scalable.
Obvious an outcome of this is, yes, the hierarchies of a capitalist system, but these hierarchies are integrated to the wider system, stimulating it. It may be an adversarial relationship, but it is not parasitic, because they use the tools of the system. A socialist system *necessarily* forces such players to operate around the system. In fact, the communist ideal of a "glorious revolution" forgets that such system disruption is not removable from a communist system. Once entrenched, the revolution simply happens in a fractionalised way - this is, by definition, corruption. The alternative proposed was the "eternal revolution", but this is just a fancy term for what the Mongols did, and they called it by its real name, "ransacking Europe and Asia for centuries". Eventually you run out of other countries, and the former problem establishes itself.
It's not really the question of "is capitalism a better system" - it is *the* system. It is *the* mechanism by which interest conflict is reconciled. If you can propose another system that effectively permits two entities to be COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO ONE ANOTHER and still engage in the same mutually beneficial system, I will show you how you either fail to meet these precise conditions or you have defined capitalism.
Ironically, the BIG concern should be the already powerful entities trying to ESTABLISH anything socialist or undermine capitalism, as, given they have resources and dominance, in this system they control the boundaries of a given system. Then, when they own that, they have the ability to truly parasitise the original system, eventually destroying it.
Managing the respective rates of schism and consolidation which mutually check one another to ensure this doesn't happen is the job of a central bank. The problem of course then is that all neutral bodies eventually become corrupt (as explained earlier), so the same dynamics have to occur at the administrative level. We arrive at geopolitical competition. And so on and so on and so on. As long as the eternal revolution is well managed with layers of common negotiation mechanisms, then no problem.
Now we go back to the collective. Participating in this battle for dominance - the key distraction and mitigative factor against the destruction of the common capitalist system (and participating in this battle is baked into the dynamics of a healthy economy and business performance, like it or not - local buyouts of failing business are a step into that direction) - is best achieved by resource maximisation. And sharing and sharing and sharing resources with the growing collective cuts out profits from the individuals most skills at leveraging those assets, which should be invested in protecting the collective. A conflict. This is either resolved by being outcompeted, or stopping the asset dilution and ensuring the decisionmakers keep the assets. Enter: the shareholders, and the nonshareholding employees. Of course, this arises not from this kind of thinking, but self-interest, but this whole system is based on self interested actors. "But what if we weren't self interested", I hear you ask? Well, Little Timmy - then you would die and leave no progeny, while the self interested actor does, and so it would have to become a system of self interested actors.
And that is why Gabi is going to have her idealism (which makes her an excellent small business owner) be slapped in the face with the difficulties of progressing to the mid-sized business owner.
And so concludes your masterclass into dynamic complex multiagent systems applied to economics.

Posted on 01 June 2025, 09:18 by: Genoshia

@Draupnir7 Consumer choice Has occurred, along a variety of factors. We're not aware of all of them, but we can make some assumptions as to what's going on here.
What we've been shown so far is that Chief has a backlog of wheels created for him by Gabi, before they stopped working for him. We can assume this means these wheels are of a quality at least on par with what people have been buying already, for quite a long time. As such, outside of price, the second factor purchasers are considering is quality; At least for now, it's the same quality.
What we've also been shown is that a large number of businesses within this town are owned, in some manner, by a Chief-equivalent; The timber company, the smithy, and even the cupcake stand have all had some equivalent to 'chief' who is in charge. The cup cake cart driver even points out he had to raise his prices because the 'owner' raised them as a result of increased wheel costs.
From this, we can derive two other factors; Much of the purchasing power within this city is held by people like Chief, who likely find his style of dress and mannerisms in keeping with their ideals of 'upper class' society, and likely see getting to do business with "one of their own" as a positive factor in favor of Chief. Second, given how the price of wheels increased other prices almost immediately, it's likely that the owners of this city are operating at paper-thin margins at the lowest levels. Likely as a result of taking as large of a piece for themselves as possible, meaning that a lower price for purchasing means a lower price for their consumer, which is yet another factor driving them towards whichever business can ultimately offer the lower prices.

If anything, long-standing businesses that have seen this happen before-basically exactly what Chief did to the last competing wheel company-likely wait for this kind of thing to happen, then buy his back stock of wheels in bulk to save on money while the competition keeps prices low. Meaning large businesses-the ones who buy the most wheels-have every reason to keep Chief in business, because he'll continue this trend of making money off those who have to buy when his prices are up, while taking advantages of his low prices whenever he tries to force out a new competitor.

Posted on 01 June 2025, 17:12 by: erana

Page 60, last panel, her face: "Forget all this crap about economics! LET'S TALK ABOUT YURI!"

Posted on 02 June 2025, 18:48 by: FeaturedOn

If you want to endear the public to your cause, employ a lisping anthropomorphic reptile woman in a maid's uniform whose expressive eyes and blushing elation overcome her Blemished Beauty.

EZ PZ

Posted on 22 June 2025, 07:52 by: Gottenhaim

Capitalism - an objective depiction of reality is already subversive propaganda.

Posted on 24 June 2025, 10:29 by: 45ZZ1

女哥布林太带派了，应该只有中国人能听懂吧

Posted on 30 June 2025, 11:21 by: erana

Calling it now - we're gonn have a depiction of market crash and hiperinflation, followed by refuge in precious metals, followed by buy-out

Posted on 20 July 2025, 16:23 by: Garma Zabi

people really believe in a system that lets you just "fail," suffer, and die. it makes me really sad. also the goblins should fuck

Posted on 23 July 2025, 00:46 by: Genoshia

@Garma Zabi Yea, communism sucks that way, but some people are die-hard supporters. At least under properly run capitalism the worst you can end up in is debt. Communism or socialism? You failed to meet your quota, off to the gulag for you.

Posted on 24 July 2025, 06:17 by: xuelianhua

话说之前看过部分的中文翻译。感觉很不错⊙ω⊙好奇作者是谁。

Posted on 26 July 2025, 11:12 by: Villhadig

This @Genoshia MF lol. ”You dont meet quota, gulag, communists puts everyone in prison. In FREE CAPITALISM you only get debt.”

Never heard of debtors prison or apparently considered why the US. has the largest prison population in the world or why the 13th amendment is still in there with it’s wording.

Posted on 03 August 2025, 20:49 by: mastersnipe25

have you ever heard about Holodomor , @Villhadig ? It was a man-made famine that occurred in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933, resulting in the deaths of millions of Ukrainians.
The famine was primarily caused by the policies of Joseph Stalin, including the forced collectivization of agriculture and the imposition of unrealistic grain quotas.
These policies led to the seizure of grain and other food supplies from Ukrainian farmers, exacerbating the famine and leading to widespread starvation.
But i guess capitalism is worse.

Posted on 04 August 2025, 21:27 by: Villhadig

Going by the exact same metrics that you count the dead under communism:
In capitalist controlled countries around the world, every year dies around 9 million people on the globe from hunger. In just then the past 12 years, more people have died under capitalism than even in your *worst* estimates of people dead in communism in its entire existence. And that is not counting the people dead from wars, from neglect of health care, lack of shelter, property incentivized crimes etc.

Edit: lol, it's always the same people downvoting you.
WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP COMING IN HERE TO READ THIS!? This comic is not for capital bootlickers like you! It doesn't even have bare goblin titties! Go somewhere else and waste away your lives!

Last edited on 10 November 2025, 16:06.

Posted on 14 August 2025, 20:43 by: SilkySlime

Came for the snu snu, stayed for the lectures and debates.
I fucking love this community.
I'm bookmarking this page for when it snowballs into "The Capital: Reloaded".

Posted on 15 August 2025, 00:20 by: Neeckin

Every time I see an update I'm worried it's gonna be some horrible twist

Posted on 15 August 2025, 01:01 by: Genoshia

@mastersnipe25 Best not to engage with Villhadig. He's a fanatic. His entire argument amounts to 'capitalism isn't perfect, therefore communism is superior.' Ignoring the many, Many examples of the failures of communism throughout the years, its obvious failings as a system meant to be used by humans, and the fact that the wealthiest countries in the world all embraced capitalist heavy economic structures.

He's also convinced this is a pro-communist comic, despite the fact what's being depicted is an entrepreneur breaking into a stagnating market with superior methodologies, and not hordes of starving peasants overthrowing a monopoly through armed revolution to 'seize the means of production.' Because someone doesn't understand the concept of a worker-cooperative, and how they're a product of a free market and would fail utterly under a communist regime.

Posted on 15 August 2025, 20:28 by: VladimirPutin1

@Genoshia

Whether or not this comic turns out to end with a crap petty bourgeois liberal message (likely given the uselessness of western socialists and the probable class character of the author), your argument about "failure" is dumb, for two reasons. One, capitalism continues to "fail" billions and billions of people around the world every year. Two, I put "fail" in quotes because it's actually wrong. Just like "capitalism isn't perfect" is wrong. Capitalism is working exactly as it is intended. It is foundationally based on the exploitation and near-total exclusion of the masses, which are not an amorphous "horde of starving peasants", but people that actually exist, even if you never think about them and don't consider them human.

The "wealthiest countries in the world" didn't just embrace capitalist heavy economic structures, practically all countries in the world have, and unsurprisingly it hasn't led even populous and resource-rich countries like Vietnam and Nigeria to possess a quality of life anywhere close to the US or Germany. Instead it's Nigerian people slaving away in cobalt mines to send it to Taiwan so that they can produce electronic devices for you to read porn on, and it's Vietnamese people in sweatshops producing cheap clothes so that you can get cumstains on them. I wonder how many Americans or Germans are working under the same conditions to do the reverse for Vietnamese and Nigerian people. I wonder why you think that is.

Posted on 17 August 2025, 10:22 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia
Page 34 and 35, what are their titles? What is their message? That's just two quick examples.

The fact of the matter is that the comic shows you how capitalism is corrupt and inefficient cause even as a small-time business the hurdles are extremely great even if you have a superior product and idea than the competition when the system itself is stacked against you. A marxist analysis is what the comic is showing, an understanding of how economy works in detail. Marx's texts are relevant today even after 170 years, cause he showed through meticulous detailed analysis of how the economic relations of the capitalist mode of production benefitted capitalists at the expense of the workers, a set of relations that despite the almost 2 centuries since has not changed.

What you seem to envision is a sad comic story about a petit-bourgeoisie entrepreneur starting her own business (now their own business through a cooperative) is a story of WHY capitalism is anti-competition and pro-monopoly. For every little victory that Gabi and the gang make, there have been huge setbacks as well as the Chief has an upper hand on the competition and remains rich. Gabi's crew makes superior products, has overall better work morale, has better customer relationships, but what remains the issue constantly throughout? The Chief still has the market in his hand through cheaper products (products that which he then steals the competitions ideas to improve and remain cheap) and remains rich.

And **I** ignore the setbacks of communism!? I am at least AWARE of them and want to see it better. You seem to have no idea at the costs and failures of capitalism to people and the world itself and just look at the wealth of nations as a sum total victory. The wealthiest countries are right now the ones that are having the largest economic wealth gaps on the planet along with countless struggles and problems that are inherent to capitalism with increasing poverty, diminishing rights for the working class and more. Things you handwave as "human nature" when they are systemic. Whatever little wealth the workers of capitalists nations has doesn't come from capitalism itself but through the socialist, worker's struggles throughout history that has fought for whatever little wage increase, whatever little holiday time, whatever little employee benefit we could get, things that capitalists wants to take away for increased profit. And here is a kicker, once Gabi's gang's business grows, they will have to play the *same rules and methods* as the other capitalist entities, like the Chief. Cause in capitalism if you get behind as competition, you risk bankruptcy, being bought out or outright forced out of the market. You have to do the same crap the comic has shown that the Chief does yourself. They will end up being him as well.

Marxism, Socialism and Communism isn't "perfect", but yeah, I truly believe it is A LOT better through how the countries that did employ it had MASSIVE improvements to the health, stability and education of the people en-masse after a socialist revolution like the USSR and China in a MUCH shorter timespan than it took for capitalist countries to reach the same. It is the future and will always be, for like Luxemburg said: it's either Socialism or Barbarism.

Posted on 29 August 2025, 17:56 by: Lord_neah

2 points :

When did pretty goblin lady joined Gabi crew ?

Anyone else noticed we didn't heard of chief since he went to trade gold for paper?

Posted on 08 September 2025, 03:57 by: Genoshia

Yep, these latest comics pretty much staple it down.

This comic isn't pro-communist propaganda. If anything, it's libertarian.

All the issues and woes faced by the protagonist come from two sources; The government- who imposes taxes, forces inspections, and shifts from gold currency to paper- and the existing moguls, who use their hordes of wealth to manipulate the market in their favor- not for the purpose of improving their business, and thus using profits to expand and innovate, but simply to maintain market dominance.

Notably, the comic does not portray these people as evil. More importantly, while they are antagonistic, they are not directly hostile. Chief is still willing to rent out his property to what is definitively his competition. The other business people, while not willing to provide the best deals to Gabi and friends, never outright refuse her business. All the issues Gabi faces trying to expand are natural road blocks in any business venture, exacerbated not by a ruling class refusing outright to allow her participation, but simply by the inherent flaws of systems that existing economic entities have learn to overcome.

Despite that, Gabi continues to succeed. It's difficult, but not impossible. While this comic does highlight some of the failings of capitalist structures, it never even suggests that those systems need to be torn down and replaced for the good of the 'common man.' Social issues are hardly even addressed, with the focus being instead of depictions of actual economic issues within capitalist structures.

All this leads me to the clear conclusion that the point of this comic is not that capitalism is bad; Instead, its purpose is to decry the failings of corporate capitalism, both in how it enables failing business models to maintain power by hording wealth and taking advantage of the poor business choices of others, and how those same problems are exacerbated by an uncaring government.
Gabi doesn't want to rise up and overthrow the Proletariat. Gabi wants a purely free market, unhindered by taxes and other pointless hurdles to good business deals. After all, so long as everyone is happy with their end of the deal, everyone profits. More wheels for everyone, and more cupcakes for Gabi.

EDIT: And (State) Racketeering is the nail in the coffin. I've not brought it up before, but this comic has additional dialogue on the actual posts that go along with each one and 'explains' the concept behind it. The most recent one explains that governmental fines are basically racketeering. Associating racketeering with legal fines is basically ascribing theft to taxation, which is a hallmark of libertarian talking points.

Last edited on 23 September 2025, 00:49.

Posted on 08 September 2025, 07:57 by: Villhadig

"Gabi doesn't want to rise up and overthrow the Proletariat."
lol, they're not sending us their best when they don't even grasp the basic terminology.

Is it because the comic is using numbers and breaking down the economic values that goes into markets? That is not intrinsically liberal or marxist, that is understanding economics in capitalism. And most of the time marxists have had a better grasp on the minutia of economics than any liberal has ever.

You're claiming that this is about the government and state when they have been MINOR characters that's only shown like 2-3 times in the entire comic. You say in one part that the government is "uncaring" while calling the comic "libertarian": an uncaring, hands-off government IS what a libertarian wants! Yet despite the absence of the government, the market struggles extremely hard with downright corruption and nepotism leading into price-hikes for competition.
And you say that social issues are not discussed when they have been brought up multiple times! Price hikes in food, in rent, striking and scabs, workplace safety cutbacks, class segregation in schools. What do you qualify as "social issues" when they are clearly discussed within the comic?

And you're actually starting to wind your argument into "real capitalism has never been done". Hilarious.

We will see where this comic ends up, but I am more than convinced that you're just an idiot with a stockholm syndrome for the boots that holds you down (or you're part of that class which oppress the others), so continuing this is just completely pointless until either lessons of life hits your face with a hammer (a worker who's tired of this shit does it for you).

Edit: lol. Someone is mentioned in the same comic to be exempt from this racketeering, the Chief. The state here is helping the capitalist monopolies by attacking the competition while the Chief, who probably lobbies them to favour him, has no issues with them. It is the upper class using it's privilege within the bourgeoisie state society for it's own benefit. And are you new to political science? Have you ever read a communist text since you claim to know so much about them? Communists literally wants a classless and *state*less society! That is the very end goal of marxist theory.

Besides, libertarians hatred against the state is superficial, if the USA government was instead "USA Government Inc.™" they would bootlick the shit out of it. They are not about liberty, just about who's boot is on their neck. If it's a private corporation stepping on them they cum buckets.

Last edited on 26 September 2025, 08:34.

Posted on 18 September 2025, 17:54 by: annon02

вестоиды, вы че реально на полном серьезе это обсуждаете?
это солевой наркоман-участник троцкисткого соцкоопа рисует под кайфом

Posted on 21 September 2025, 21:55 by: Neeckin

This is always such a mildly depressing comic. Every other page is a little kick to the shin

Posted on 22 September 2025, 22:29 by: erana

This comment section is a goldmine of laughs.

Posted on 10 October 2025, 16:39 by: Nekeku

I'm an idiot for engaging with the comments but whatever.

The author references economic concepts and illustrates criticisms of capitalism on every page, agree or disagree, they know enough about economics to have their mind made up that capitalism is bad, they aren't just a poor mistaken liberal.

The characters form a cooperative enterprise because, while it isn't perfect and requires engaging with the capitalist market, it's an immediately available potential means of alleviating suffering under capitalism and developing cooperative practices and social consciousness that can lead to greater change later.

What else would they do? They can't overthrow the state with their numbers. They can't just walk away and make their own town, because all the land is owned by somebody and they'd be charged with trespassing and violently removed.

Capitalism isn't freedom and Econ 101 doesn't explain or justify everything. Market exchanges aren't voluntary when it's the only way for someone to get what they need. People don't have equal resources and power. Market exchanges aren't logically always mutually beneficial because people don't have perfect information, perfect reason, and the superhuman ability to foresee all future consequences. People can fucking lie. In more practical terms, you live in a society where the only way to get the things you need is by spending money, and the only viable way for most people to get money is to work for someone else, and that puts you at the mercy of rich bastards, which isn't freedom.

If you're going to say that deaths caused by failures of central planning 90 years ago are the fault of communism, then you need to acknowledge that people die of poverty today under capitalism. The USA is the richest country in the world, and tens of thousands die homeless every year, more die because they can't afford healthcare they need, more die of suicide or drug overdose before they reach that point.

Posted on 27 October 2025, 07:38 by: Genoshia

@Nekeku The problem with your argument is that it assumes that criticisms of capitalism are equivalent to anti-capitalist propaganda.

See, if you actually made a study of capitalism as discussed among capitalists, you'd realize that there's more than one variety. Capitalists regularly criticize different aspects of various capitalist societies.
Especially in regards to authoritarian capitalism being criticized by libertarian capitalists. So, the comic criticizing specific capitalist systems doesn't prove it's anti-capitalist; Just that it thinks those specific structures are flawed.

The Other problem with your argument is that the comic doesn't show pro-communist or pro-socialist ideas. Gabi's cooperative functions in a capitalist manner; Each employee is paid based entirely on their labor. If the company were organized in a socialist economic structure, then each person would be getting paid based on their needs. If it were a communist structure, people wouldn't be getting paid at all; The company would buy everything they need, and just give it to them.
Likewise, the goal of the cooperative seems to be to compete with other companies through innovation. That is a capitalist methodology; Produce funds by making a better product than the competition.
A communist or socialist company would not seek to innovate as a means of competition. Instead, they would put all of their funds towards dominating the market, until they could afford to buy out the other businesses. The benefits of socialism and communism is that allowing the collective to decide how resources are spent reduces waste. Innovation demands trial and error, which more often than not is a wasteful process.
By just functioning more efficiently than their competition, they would eventually be able to use their excess wealth generation to buy out their competitors, and/or the producers of the raw materials; Ultimately seizing the means of production away from capitalists, which is a primary goal of both systems.

Finally, pointing out that capitalism isn't a perfect system doesn't really help make your case; Proponents of capitalism don't ever try to sell it as "perfect." Their arguments in favor of it almost always amount to it being the best option we've discovered so far, and not that it's without flaw. All they have to do to defend it is show that it functions better than anarchy, which is does.
Proponents of communism and socialism, on the other hand, have the burden of proof of demonstrating that those systems are actively better than capitalism, because capitalism already exists and is embraced in some fashion by most of the world.
Problem being that every attempt, thus far, at pushing towards social/communist structures has either failed or only been upheld by a totalitarian government abusing its populace.

Posted on 27 October 2025, 23:10 by: Nekeku

@Guy I don't know how the story is going to end, but the title is a reference to Marx and the cover is an industrial worker waving a red flag, you're fucking crazy if you think this building to a pro capitalist ending.

Yes, economists criticize capitalism and agree that regulation is necessary because capitalists are obviously evil morons who periodically crash their own economy and benefit from being protected from their own ignorant, short-sighted greed.

Co-ops and unions aren't necessarily going to do everything a socialist government would do, because the only control their selves and they have only their own resources, so they only provide for their own members. But they do kinda pay according to need, in 41: Sick Leave, they pay someone who isn't producing, even if it's for pragmatic reasons. In 57: Food Cooperative, they use money to buy food instead of paying workers directly, because the organization can negotiate and finance things workers can't do individually.

The "Communists don't innovate" thing just seems like some shit you made up based on your personal interpretation of "seize the means". The co-op's top priority is sustaining the company and providing for their members, so they try to make money. They're not trying to overthrow capitalism by beating them at their own game and acquiring a monopoly. And if they were, making money would be a prerequisite step anyway.

And yeah, when your team's in charge you get to be intellectually lazy because you don't need to win arguments or persuade anybody. Have fun with that.

Posted on 28 October 2025, 20:26 by: aeroplume72

He may be corrupted and uncaring to his employees, but you gotta hand that much to chief, he IS an evil genius at making a profit. Leaves a strange mix of despair and weird fascination on the tongue.

Posted on 01 November 2025, 01:15 by: Genoshia

Because I'm getting tired of this argument;

Quoted directly from the author's own page, on boosty @https://boosty.to/art.duende : " Меня зовут Тимур, и я рисую "Габитал" - комикс о трудностях капитализма в фэнтезийном сеттинге.
Вместе с очаровательной гоблиншей Габи мы познакомимся с основными проблемами фэнтезийного капиталистического общества и попробуем их решить. "

Translated: " My name is Timur, and I draw "Gabital"—a comic about the challenges of capitalism in a fantasy setting.
Together with the charming goblin Gabi, we'll explore the main problems of fantasy capitalist society and try to solve them. "

Author's intent, in their own words: "Explore the main problems of fantasy capitalist society and try to solve them."

The intent of the comic is pro-capitalist, with a focus on exploring the problems with capitalism and how to Solve Them. Not 'destroy' the system, or overthrow the capitalist society. Fix the problems that exist. Something capitalists regularly discuss and debate over; Defining what the specific failings of certain capitalist societies are, and how to solve the problems they create.

Posted on 03 November 2025, 06:18 by: Art3r

As much as he is swindle, exploitator and crook the Chief is surprisingly straightforward, open and nice about Gabi trying to be competitor. He actually taught her a lot. Gabi might want to be different player than Chief but to play she has to know rules and he knows them well. And how to skirt and bend them.

Posted on 05 November 2025, 16:24 by: Villhadig

"Explore the main problems of fantasy capitalist society and try to solve them."

The word "try" is carrying the fucking sky in that quote if you think that makes it pro-capitalist by default.

Posted on 09 November 2025, 21:31 by: mastersnipe25

@Villhadig lol you're still arguing with random people here?

"Going by the exact same metrics that you count the dead under communism:
In capitalist controlled countries around the world, every year dies around 9 million people on the globe. In just then the past 12 years, more people have died under capitalism than even in your *worst* estimates of people dead in communism in its entire existence. And that is not counting the people dead from wars, from neglect of health care, lack of shelter, property incentivized crimes etc."

cute, you didn't name a single example of a historical event where millions people died under capitalism. instead you generalize all death attributing it to capitalism. and second you make it sound like communism is a perfect utopia where people shits rainbow and roses without corruption, wars and deaths. grow up man you're on porn site.

also, i acknowledge that capitalism isn't perfect, but i can criticize capitalism in a capitalist country, not communism in a communist country without being imprisoned or executed.

Posted on 10 November 2025, 16:18 by: Villhadig

@mastersnipe25
Indonesian massacre of 1965, the Irish famine, the Indian famines under the British empire, Hitler and Nazis who were supported by most of the capitalists around the world, the US. targeting innocent civilians in the Korean war killing a third of the North Korean population, the untold dead under US. occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the current deaths of literally-we-don't-know-anymore by the Israelis in Gaza, the Vietnam War and much more.

"instead you generalize all death attributing it to capitalism."
You mean the very thing that you cunts do when tallying up "100 million billion" to communism? Yeah, I am allowed to do that then. Read up on the so called "Black book of Communism" and why it's one of the most trite lies ever, it's so bad even fucking Wikipedia lists why it is.

"and second you make it sound like communism is a perfect utopia where people shits rainbow and roses without corruption, wars and deaths."
Sure as shit ain't perfect but would be a lot better than capitalism killing the entirety of Earth for the sake of assholes like Musk earning billions so they can fuck off the Mars when the planet collapses in ecological suicide.

I bet my own ass I could go to China and criticise it without imprisonment, cause in the end why would they bother? Capitalists don't imprison you cause your voice means nothing to them and in the end, you still have to work for them to survive, you're still someone to exploit for their profit. They instead imprison you now if you critique Israel.

"grow up man you're on porn site."
You're in the gallery for a non-porn comic discussing capitalist economics. The fuck are you on about? Course people can discuss this shit here then.

Last edited on 11 November 2025, 17:58.

Posted on 12 November 2025, 17:54 by: Perky Nipple

@mastersnipe25
Em... and in what year was the biggest famine in Lviv? ... and in what year was Lviv annexed?

Posted on 14 November 2025, 01:36 by: mastersnipe25

@Villhadig still in porn site, sure do you want cunt, im not winnie the pooh from china, but you still arguing with strangers on this comic shows how much of loser and no life you have. you think Cunty mcfaggot Musk is the only one exploiting people? China baby!

Posted on 17 November 2025, 19:16 by: erana

This comment section keeps being a goldmine of laughs.

Posted on 17 November 2025, 20:53 by: rocketdrive

@villhadig
just so I understand the argument right:
you think capitalism is worse than communism because the cherry picked numbers you reference for people who died of acceptable causes under capitalism outweighs the number of people who died under communism in Unacceptable circumstances?

Intelligence is really like food for communists, they just dont get it.

It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave. but...ya know....muh cuh-mmunism

Posted on 17 November 2025, 22:38 by: dagger69

@rocketdrive it's funny that y'all talk about "cherry picked numbers" when you regularly reference a book
That sights Nazi's killed by Soviets during WWII as "deaths by communism", and that's on top of it counting projected birth rates that weren't reached, people not ever born, as "deaths by communism" too, but then cherry pick your own examples.
Only accepting deaths under capitalism as counting under "acceptable causes", what might those be, may I ask? Does homelessness count? Or starvation? If either do, your argument is already bunk, but you'll just make another excuse to discount them, "those people deserve it because they're lazy!" "Those People are just unlucky losers in the game" "those people are just too stupid to deserve a comfortable living, that's only for the elite, like me!", I've heard it all before, excuse after excuse to treat other human beings as undeserving of comfort, of living civilized lives, just because they don't please you're beliefs about the world.
But go on, tell me how the Soviets were evil incarnate for killing Nazi's, housing people, and snubbing private enterprise, tell me how it's evil to refuse "free trade", how unfair it is that they wouldn't let a single person own an entire factory, or chain of factories 🙄

Or do you think your government is somehow so much better? Private prison systems are different from gulags? Right, because gulags were for innocent people, who weren't charged with any real, American crimes, only made up Soviet ones, while in your just, capitalist prison system, only evil criminals, who hate America, are captured and forced to work without pay, totally different, right?

But hey, maybe capitalism is better in other ways, yeah? I'm sure capitalist government addresses the demands of the people, right? Unlike those evil wicked Soviets, who forced honest trade workers, I'm sorry, "lazy alcoholics" to work long, agonizing hours, for almost no pay at all, only to send them to a tiny little shoebox apartment to sleep and prepare to do it again tomorrow, man, doesn't that just sound horrible and alien? Sure is great that capitalism affords you the ability to do what you want, pays you what you're worth, and makes sure you have a nice place to live, right? 😎👍

At least capitalism has giant concrete buildings, and stock markets, and class division to keep the Poor's out of sight, how could that possibly be worse, after all? When societies progress is measured by the austerity of the wealthiest.

Kindly pull your head out of your ass, or put it the rest of the way back up there so we can't hear your disingenuous, incoherent propagnadizing, anyone who'd buy it already has, and those who haven't, won't.

Posted on 19 November 2025, 21:19 by: rocketdrive

@dagger69
using the "we're only as bad as you" argument is really not helping your case here, cause best case scenario AS PROUDLY DECLARED BY YOU communism can ONLY be as good as the worst of capitalism.

really not selling your case.

Try using an argument referencing real numbers and real data instead of your red rose colored stalinism glasses that say communism can NEVER do anything wrong. Not even sure how you think "communism never did anything wrong" is a viable argument.

or are you so delusional you think the ONLY reason communism continues to fail it's users is simply because "they didnt do it right"?

Perhaps I should remind you even the poorest in America are richer than most in the undeveloped world, and in some ways richer than those under current communism. It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave.

Posted on 20 November 2025, 03:20 by: dagger69

@rocketdrive but that's the thing, I've said no such thing at all, the worst of capitalism isn't "at least you're housed and fed", it's "ewww, get away! Filthy boho!", not at all "the best communism is just the worst capitalism", that's a lie, and you're a liar.

Maybe if you could stop being disingenuous for one second, you'd realize that it's actually you making the "(my system) never did anything wrong" arguments, but because you know how bad that would sound, you reinterpret it as me making the ridiculous claim of innocence, ignoring my actual arguments to attack a straw man instead.

The reason communism fails, most often, is because of interference by capitalist nations screeching "IT'S A THREAT TO MY WAY OF LIFE REEEEEEE!", who then start harping on about how you need to declare war on those evil socialists, or place sanctions or embargoes on them, but sure, it's communism's fault, all on it's own, not only is it not perfect, it also ALWAYS fails and ONLY EVER makes people's lives worse, by it's own virtue only, and I'm the one with the rose tinted glasses for thinking anything good could come of it, sure thing.

By the way, it's hilarious that you'd demand real data from me, when you keep bringing up that there's a charge to visit Marx's grave, as though he were the one charging for it himself.

The poorest in America being richer than most in other third world countries hardly even matters, because quality of living isn't relative, my neighbors, or someone on the other side of the planet, suffering, doesn't make my lot in life any more comfortable, if anything, it makes me feel even more powerless, since I'd rather us both have better living conditions, but can't do anything about it, because democracy under capitalism is a pyramid scheme, but please, assure me that communism would for sure be so so so much worse- oh wait! You already have! Silly me.

And that's while a single one of the richest in America have enough wealth to rent out the city of Venice for a week, but sure, Americans having iPhone makes it even and fair, they shouldn't complain, why aspire to more when have iPhone? Food? Housing? Why would anyone need those when IPhones are only $200?

And don't throw some garbage about "well life just isn't fair" at me, I've heard how y'all complain about the "unfairness" of taxation, you only care if things seem fair to you, you don't actually believe life isn't fair, just that it's not fair to all those people who's suffering you like to ignore, so it doesn't matter to you.

Posted on 22 November 2025, 20:29 by: Villhadig

"It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave. but...ya know....muh cuh-mmunism"

Doing a "You communists asks for money" when people live in a capitalist society where things costs money is probably one of the most retarded attempts at a "gotcha" in human history. Imagine if someone came up to you in the 1600's "WHY DOTH THOU PAY THINE TITHES TO THE KING, AREN'T THOU'ST AN LIBERAL!?"

Last edited on 22 November 2025, 23:33.

Posted on 25 November 2025, 11:28 by: rocketdrive

"The poorest in America being richer than most in other third world countries hardly even matters"

shortly followed by

"WHY DOTH THOU PAY THINE TITHES TO THE KING, AREN'T THOU'ST AN LIBERAL!?"

yet when the communists charge money for support of a capitalist system WHILE DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO CAPITALISM IN ALL FORMS it's called necessary, not a failure to abide by beliefs.

No wonder you all used pencils for your space program

Posted on 25 November 2025, 17:10 by: Villhadig

For "support" of a capitalist system? Read Lenin's "What is to be done" why Communists gather money in a capitalist society to fund the movement for the working class when they have not the backing of liberal billionaire donors. And it is funny that socialists and communists are the ones who have to do some "self-reflection" when the supposed lovers of "individual freedom" does none of that in a society where our "freedom" is in 99.99% of the case either work and enrich someone else or get imprisoned or die in starvation. You have none of this critical thinking towards yourselves.

"No wonder you all used pencils for your space program"

Look up Katherine Johnson and then the book "Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Who Helped Win the Space Race" you inbred liberal retard and then shoot yourselves so it saves the rest of us the trouble when the time comes.

Last edited on 25 November 2025, 17:50.

Posted on 25 November 2025, 21:13 by: Nekeku

If you're this mad after spending nearly a year arguing about communism with the same handful of people who don't even know what the word means, maybe it's time to stop.

I think the world would be a better place if we shared and cooperated more equally, and I think one day we'll figure out how to do it.

Posted on 27 November 2025, 12:31 by: Socrates3125

Communism might not be the answer of captialism, but definitely the result.

Posted on 27 November 2025, 13:59 by: rocketdrive

@Villhadig
Do tell me when has communism ever resulted in something that's not "99.99% of the case either work and enrich someone else or get imprisoned or die in starvation"

oh wait you cant because that's ALL you can do in communism. That's all it will ever be. Capitalism is, and you cannot debate this, even at it's most pessimist incarnation a system of Darwinism and change. Cry harder about how bad we are now, we were worse before, we will continue to be better, but Communism never will change and, as it always has been, will continue to forever be a cry for those who simply want to step on others to feel good.

Verifying you lost the space race when you had a head start isn't helping your case Stalinist. Doubly so when your government was actively hunting down, imprisoning, and executing anyone who was "too smart".

It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave by the ACTIVE CHOICE of your own believers. Could have been buried in a more publicly accessible place but your own faction chose PROFIT over their own beliefs.

Posted on 27 November 2025, 21:13 by: Villhadig

@Nekeku
Yeah I know, I'll quit when I get bored and just load a massive ascii finger when the comic goes in a revolutionary direction.

@rocketdrive
In just a short time span of two decades after each revolution, countries like USSR, China and Cuba saw vastly improved conditions like better average lifespan, ability to read, home ownership, productions etc. Things that were sadly then hampered by the inefficiency of the bureaucracies that ran them but shows the sheer power of a planned economy over a market economy where the same results takes almost a century, the difference needed is a democracy to control that planned economy. Russia after it's collapse back into capitalism has yet to ever reach the same numbers of pre-fall USSR in life quality.

Capitalisms entire system is built on stepping on the others while telling yourself that it's "voluntary" or "for the greater good" or "just business". You can't have capitalism without exploitation of others.
The more you talk the more clear it becomes that you really have no idea what you're talking about. "Stalinist"? I've never made such a claim that I am nor ever defended Stalin. "Executing anyone too smart" is hilariously dumb and so unfounded I need not even argue about it.

A "space race" that the US. set and nobody else really was participating. The Soviets were the first to launch a satellite, first to put a man in orbit, a woman in orbit, to send a probe to Venus, to build a space station and much more. I celebrate those achievements gladly and heroes like Yuri Gagarin. That was never the point though, you were the one who said "you used pencils for your space program" while completely ignoring the VERY history of NASA itself and still obviously do, too embarrassed to even adress it.

And once again you keep using the word "belief" like it's some religion. Marxism is not a lifestyle like Amish. It's a lot more grounded than you weird wanks who keep believing in "invisible hands of the market", shit, did I make an assumption? Sorry Herr Nazi, I'll behave next time.

Edit: My ever present companion Botos, hope you accidentally find an elevator shaft some day too.

Last edited on 29 November 2025, 13:17.

Posted on 07 December 2025, 18:51 by: Lord_neah

Still wondering why none of the girls wear shirts (not that I complain at all)

Posted on 08 December 2025, 04:54 by: dsadsadsadsa

Holy shit they don't, I never noticed.

Posted on 08 December 2025, 17:30 by: Villhadig

Check page 61, on the right of the group.

One at least does.

Posted on 10 December 2025, 17:36 by: rocketdrive

@villhadig

The nazi regime also measurably improved the lives of SOME of the population of germany in a very short period of time. I would not use that as grounds to say the nazi party was good UNLIKE YOU.

It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave by the ACTIVE CHOICE of your own believers.

Posted on 10 December 2025, 19:42 by: Villhadig

You will gladly join a Nazi party to fight down the proletariat uprising. I know that for a fact, lib, cause you liberals always do cause Nazis unlike socialists don't threaten capital. :P

The world is turning against you liberals. Either they go to the far right (which you will in turn soon after) or they ask for revolution against the system that is breaking them. Your system is slowly collapsing around you. Poverty is increasing. The wealth gap is widening. People are dying to make the rich richer. Wars are increasing not driven by ideology but by greed of capitalists. The genocide in Palestine is funded by you fucks.

And when our times come, we will make no excuses for the terror.

Posted on 15 December 2025, 01:51 by: erana

Did I say that this comment's section was a goldmine of laughs? I stand corrected. This is past a goldmine- it's a storm of hilarity, an hurricane of laughs, a constant shower of hilariously uneducated comments by people with far more love of their prose than knowledge of what they pontificate about.
And in betwen, the patrician shirtless gobbo admirers. @Lord_neah, a fellow person of culture.
The rest of you, never change, guys. Not that you could.

Last edited on 26 December 2025, 00:54.

Posted on 15 December 2025, 04:29 by: PlayBoi Tiffany

The cover doesn't match the comment section, that's for sure ╮(╯▽╰)╭

Posted on 17 December 2025, 06:00 by: rocketdrive

and the communist suddenly admits he's a staunch Hitler supporter. No wonder your entire political system breaks under it's own weight. The most successful communist regime could only work under an entire culture of self perpetuating corruption.

It is currently about 13$ to visit karl marx's grave by the ACTIVE CHOICE of your own believers.

Posted on 25 December 2025, 19:33 by: Lord_neah

Can we have a page with all their names? Most of them have only nicknames in my head so far xD

Posted on 26 December 2025, 03:12 by: Thisismythirdaccount

Anyone that thinks this is pro-capitalist is an idiot or rage-baiting lmao

Posted on 26 December 2025, 11:17 by: Morpheistos

@rocketdrive => when did they said they are supporting hitler ? and i don't understand what you mean regarding the karl marx's grave either :/ the grave's management structure isn't in a communist country as far as i know ^^" (or the brexit was more drastic than i thought ^^ )

Last edited on 26 December 2025, 11:58.

Posted on 29 December 2025, 18:08 by: lexninja

卧槽，为什么能在e站看到这个

Posted on 29 December 2025, 18:35 by: t965433t

this comic...so dark

Posted on 11 January 2026, 17:26 by: La7B20

这评论区有力气

Posted on 13 January 2026, 22:00 by: Polarknight537

There's a couple things I want to see in this.

1. Tires. This was a thing in real life, metal banded wheels tear up roads and increase maintenance on them, so tires became required on wheels so as to not tear up roads. Leather, hardened leather, cloth, and paper were all materials tires were made out of. Maybe the Gabby could notice this and the goblins try to start selling tires, but then realize there's no incentive for people to buy the tires, they don't pay for the roads(except with their taxes, so it's an invisible cost). There needs to be a legal incentive for customers to buy tires, but the goblins don't have the political sway. So they put a patent on tires, so Chief can't steal the idea again, and try to get Chief to convince the governors to make a law that fines people using wheels without tires in exchange for a contract with them where Chief stops selling wheels and gives them his wheel manufacturing machines and he gets to sell tires, which are disposable and have a shorter service life than tires meaning people buy them more often, they can be made of cheap materials(leather cloth and paper), and they have "luxury" variants that can be sold at extreme markups. Leather is economy grade, then hardened leather which are heavy duty, then paper being premium and more durable than regular leather but give a softer ride, then cloth is luxury and give the softest ride but are the least durable. Chief would love the idea.

2. A Thieves Guild/labor union side plot. Goblins are invariably associated with thievery and the Thieves Guild. It's a stereotype, but maybe it could be subverted a bit by the introduction to the Thieves Guild being that they're the ones to assume the goblin workers would be willing to work with them. My idea for the side story is a civil war storyline where one half basically turns into a labor union enforcement, and the other half basically turns into the Pinkertons. The rich people pays one side to bust up unions, but if everyone is poor there's no one to steal from because the rich have to good security. The various Mafias and Mobs IRL actually did help start and maintain labor unions in the US, because it allowed them to more easily extort employers, and more easily get their own workers. This wasn't an ideal situation for anyone, but it was a decent deal for the laborers, because when the guys deciding what your paycheck is are criminals, you have a bit more leverage on them. The Mafia had more leverage on the employers because they could break the knees of scabs, steal stuff from the job site and resell it, and gift any employer not cooperating with a nice new pair of cement shoes, and the laborers had more leverage on the Mafia than they did on the employer because all it took was one or two guys, rather than everyone. The one getting shafted the most is the greedy capitalist. Cop unions work the best because they can skip the Mafia middleman, and shoot the guy not cooperating themselves and plant drugs on them. That's why when a cop murders an innocent person and/or commits a crime, they get punished with a few weeks of paid vacation instead of getting put in jail, their union threatens anyone trying to get justice.

Y'all dumbasses should look up why there were famines in those communist countries. It sure as shit had fuck all to do with communism. It was a rejection of modern science. To put it in an EXTREMELY simplified way, the guy they had in charge of agriculture didn't believe in evolution, and they forced all the farmers in the USSR and China to plant their crops in stupid ways which caused poor harvests and thus famine. If they simply hadn't rejected modern mainstream science they wouldn't have had the famines.

Last edited on 13 January 2026, 22:32.

Posted on 25 January 2026, 23:15 by: Lord_neah

*pour love and support into Gabi's sadness barrel*

Last edited on 26 January 2026, 11:34.

Posted on 01 February 2026, 03:48 by: Genoshia

@Polarknight537 While it's not necessarily inherent, poor decision making by those in power impacting the entire populace is a possible result of communism.

In a free market, there exists a natural incentive to attempt diverse growing strategies. A market based economy promotes diverse product choice, as even a niche market can support a very lucrative business model if properly handled. As a direct result of that incentive existing, people just will grow a diverse range of crops and use a wide variety of planting techniques in an attempt to maximize the resources available to them to produce the greatest profit.

In communism, there is no such incentive. People do not grow crops for the sake of producing profit. They grow crops for the sake of producing crops. As a result, they have no reason to question how many crops are grown, or what methods are used to plant them. At least, not until the methods they were told to use produce insufficient food and mass starvation ensues.

The fact is if a decision is made on how crops will be grown in a communist society, then that will be THE method used. While this would ideally mean that the most food it is possible to produce is grown, it also means that if said decision was a poor one then everyone will suffer as a result.

However, there's no reason for anyone to question the method that's decided upon. After all, the person making the decision would be the person who was determined to be the "best" at making said decision. Any alternative plans would have been shot down by that person, who was granted the final authority to make the decision, and "everyone" (or, more likely, whomever actually holds the power within the government) already agreed that said person was the most informed on the topic.
Which, of course, comes back around to the old communist problem of "Just because the majority agrees on a decision, doesn't make it the right decision."

Posted on 01 February 2026, 10:31 by: PoorWhiteTrash

So, uh, someone mentioned R34 fan comic with Gabi and the elf - doesn't seem to be on e-hentai - anybody know if it's real/got a link/just upload it here?

I may just have been fooled by a reddit joke...

Posted on 02 February 2026, 00:30 by: bobomb1

@PoorWhiteTrash

https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=13116354&tags=gabital+

There you go.

Posted on 02 February 2026, 18:00 by: PoorWhiteTrash

@Bobomb1 Thank you. you're doing god's work!

Posted on 03 February 2026, 17:32 by: Polarknight537

@Genoshia
Yeah, that's fair. The biggest hurdle in every economic and governmental system is that people can be dumbasses. With one person at the helm you inevitably end up with an idiot tyrant, like Stalin, Hitler, Akhenaten, Trump, etc. With a group, or no leader at all, sure you get "the wisdom of the crowd" but you also get "mob mentality." With both you get both.

Posted on 05 February 2026, 08:22 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia

"While it's not necessarily inherent, poor decision making by those in power impacting the entire populace is a possible result of communism."
And then at the end:
"Which, of course, comes back around to the old communist problem of "Just because the majority agrees on a decision, doesn't make it the right decision."

In one part you argue that the issue is a minority making decisions and in the next part you argue that the problem is the majority making decisions. What do you actually believe in here?

As for incentive of efficient production: Within any of these economic systems one of the great incentives to make production more efficient is time save. Here is the problem, within capitalist production there are thousands upon thousands of people with ideas how to make this production more efficient, easier etc. BUT capitalism disincentivizes these ideas due to that this does not mean less work for the workers, it only means that the work changes. They instead regularly withhold their ideas for the sake of either A: It won't change anything since they will still be required to work the same amount of hours or B: They fear that a more efficient production means losing their jobs since management often instead cuts down on the amount of workers when less production hours is needed for the same amount.

Within a socialist, worker controlled economy the ideas would have a purpose for the sake of cutting down on hours since production is not made for the sake of profit, thereby they could safely tell their ideas since innovation would lead to increased production of goods in less work hours needed. The result would more likely be then that since production is made for the sake of fulfilling needs, work hours could be cut down for everyone with no loss of living quality for those who work in said production. Said innovations would then also have a much bigger chance to be spread around globally to increase production around the world since there is no patent system that corporations can use to hold onto better ideas for themselves for the sake of trying to monopolize production.

Posted on 05 February 2026, 16:52 by: byakkoya

The Chief is kind of a gigachad ngl

Posted on 07 February 2026, 23:43 by: SolidGopher

A lot of Capitalists in here not knowing what Socialism is. They see an exchange of money for labor and thing "See! It's Capitalism!" and not realize that the gobbos are seizing the Means of Production from the Capitalist Class (Chief). People who call themselves capitalists, despite not actually owning capital, would probably be Socialists if they knew what it actually was and not what the actual Capitalists tell them it is. Walk up to a bunch of blue collar workers in a factory and say "Wouldn't it be cool if everyone who worked here owned the factory and split profits instead of it all going to the owner?" they would say yes and would only be upset once they find out that they have Socialist ideals about labor.

Posted on 08 February 2026, 00:02 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig I have no doubts I will regret engaging you again, but here we go;

It's not a matter of what I "believe." Both stances can be true, simultaneously.

Communist societies, in practice, require leadership roles for the same reason any system of humanity requires leadership roles. The simple fact is that it is vastly more efficient to train small groups of individuals to become skilled in specialized labor than to try and train the entire populace to be equally skilled at all forms of specialized labor. Ideally, those trained for those roles will have a natural predisposition to be good at them. Among those trained in those roles - those who possess the specialized knowledge necessary to perform the task - you will also need individuals to perform executive functions. This includes things like scheduling times for people to work so that you don't have a surplus or lack of workers at any given time, to logistical functions like deciding how to portion out on-sight storage to the necessary supplies needed for the job, and many more. The natural result of these needs is leadership roles.

Within the context of running a functional society, this culminates in the need of leadership roles for very large scale decision making. In a communist society, large scale decision making is necessary for all aspects of society, as there is no competition. Everyone does what everyone agrees is best to do.
Which brings us back to leadership roles; It is entirely possible that the thing "everyone agrees is best to do" is to make decisions based off of expert opinion.
In practice, this means having people who are considered experts in their field make decisions on behalf of the society as a whole. If the people agree the person is an expert on a function, they are part of the decision making process for that function of society. If the person is not an expert, they have no grounds upon which to make claims against the decisions made by the experts.
However, just because a society agrees that a set group of people are experts on a topic does not inherently mean the decisions that group of people make will be the correct decisions.
It does mean that, if the decisions that group makes are the wrong decisions, the consequences will be felt by the entire society; Because that group is making those decisions for the entire society.

This is even more true in societies which try to maximize on allowing people free time over resource production. While an excess of production can lead to waste, waste can generally be repurposed. Time, as a resource, can never be repurposed once expended. Maximizing free time ultimately leads to intentionally trying to minimize waste, as waste creates more work that needs to be done.
However, any excess resources - the thing that normally becomes waste - is also protection against shortfalls.
If a society eliminates waste, in favor of maximizing free time, what that means in practice is operating on very thin margins of error. When the entire society operates on those same margins, it leaves the entire society vulnerable to whatever errors may exist within the executive decisions made by the expert groups.
That vulnerability is especially problematic in regards to food production, as food is a basic human need.

In conclusion; A side effect of a communist society can very much be people in power - power given to them by the collective, who have no reason to challenge their own decision to give them that power until after catastrophe has already occurred - making poor decisions that ultimately cause mass issues for the society as a whole. This being a direct result of humans being fallible, even collectively.
Strictly because allowing any decision to be made for an entire society runs the risk of the entire society suffering as a result of the decision being wrong.

Capitalist societies overcome this issue through diversity, allowing individuals to make decisions based off of personal reasons. If one method fails in a market full of different methods, then there will be a shortfall. However, that shortfall will be overcome because capitalism does not aim to produce the bare minimum. It aims to produce profit, which almost always results in excess. Excess is a society's natural defense against shortfalls. That defense is built into the system, by default. It's not infallible, of course, but it is a useful precaution that exists simply as a byproduct.

Posted on 08 February 2026, 05:37 by: Nekeku

"Communism is bad if I assume an absolute ruler who is very stupid."

We can regulate industries without necessarily doing Lysenkoism, without radical nationwide experiments that fail because they're based on bad science. Science isn't incompatible with communism, the USSR (which doesn't necessarily define communism but whatever) developed technologically, they didn't launch Sputnik with sticks and stones.

Posted on 08 February 2026, 06:28 by: Genoshia

@Nekeku I didn't say "Communism is bad if I assume an absolute ruler who is very stupid." I never mentioned an absolute ruler, nor will you find anything in what I said that mentions anything equivalent to an absolute ruler. A governing structure can have leaders and leadership structures without needing an absolute ruler. In fact, leadership structures and roles are pretty well mandatory within any kind of civilized society.
Not every decision can be decided practically by mass vote. If someone calls in sick to work at the local power plant, you can't hold a country-wide vote to decide who will cover the shift and just let the power go out until the votes can be cast and tallied. Someone has to have the power to make those decisions without consulting the entire nation.

That aside, as I originally stated, an inherent failing of communism is that it is vulnerable to human error in a way capitalism isn't. If one farmer in a capitalist society makes a poor decision about what crop to grow, that's bad for that farmer, but not every other farmer in the country.
If the Communist Council of Agricultural Affairs, or whatever name they give to the group of experts who were voted in to make decisions about how and when to grow crops, happens to make a mistake then the entire society will suffer as a result.

There are safe guards that can be put in place to prevent this, theoretically. However, it would require convincing a great deal of people, all of whom are considered the most informed about their position by the general populace, that they might be wrong and so they should intentionally build inefficiencies into their plans to help defend against the possibility of them being wrong.
Which is unlikely to happen, to say the least.
Communist models have a very poor track record of taking the human element into account when planning their faux-utopian societies.

Posted on 08 February 2026, 09:29 by: Nekeku

I'm not quoting you directly because you take five paragraphs to say "decisions are complicated, therefor communism is bad" and I want to show people how much simpler it could be to say basic things. Also good work voting on everything with your alt account.

Posted on 08 February 2026, 17:13 by: Genoshia

@Nekeku I don't have an alt account. Frankly, anyone who makes an alt account to upvote their own comments on a porn website is a level of subhuman I wouldn't interact with. Accordingly, I'm going to stop talking to you now. That simple enough for you to wrap your head around?

Posted on 09 February 2026, 03:54 by: byakkoya

Keep arguing, it makes me horny.

Posted on 10 February 2026, 18:22 by: Villhadig

@Nekeku
It might be their gimp's account.

Posted on 16 February 2026, 05:14 by: Nekeku

Botos being your alt account is more plausible than Botos being a real person who refreshes the thread regularly just to upvote your posts. Except when I call them out. Which also makes you not want to talk to me? Interesting.

I didn't bother going into detail because I've seen your other arguments, and you don't know what you're talking about, you'll backpedal, and if your back's against the wall, you'll just hide behind your indestructible opinion of "yeah but communism just doesn't work though". I felt compelled to post for the first time in a while because your post sucked. You start from the conclusion of communism being bad and then apparently just fucking guess at what would reach that end, and this time make the obviously factually incorrect statement that science is incompatible with communism. And then you backpedal to "an inherent failing of communism is that it is vulnerable to human error in a way capitalism isn't" (direct quote for once, you're welcome), which is dumb, because who the fuck makes decisions in capitalism then? The invisible hand? That's not even real, that's a metaphor. And capitalist governments also make laws that regulate industry, commerce, labor, and so on under legal penalties ultimately enforced by the state's monopoly of violence, so it's not like we're dodging all that by steering clear of communism.

The goal of communism isn't to imitate Stalin or Mao like they're religious icons. We don't reject everything capitalism has built as if it's tainted by their touch. We can have the same people working the same jobs in the same places, but under new management with the goal of enriching all of society instead of shareholders. Capitalism has been amazingly productive, and we should want to seize what they've built so we can repurpose it all to provide better for everyone, to end poverty, to create a more peaceful, healthy, educated world, to build utopia.

And I hope you keep your word and don't respond, because I know you'd be fucking seething to let this be the last word.

Posted on 16 February 2026, 10:34 by: UnknownVariableA

Neeckin said on 21st September 2025 :"This is always such a mildly depressing comic. Every other page is a little kick to the shin"

The answer to that from experience is "Nanomach......I mean... It's Business, son!"

Gabi and her crew will get there....

Posted on 28 February 2026, 21:25 by: mastersnipe25

aww poor gabi, give her a huge win please!

Posted on 01 March 2026, 17:11 by: erana

@mastersnipe25 Comic is called "fantastic capitalism", and in each strip it explores an ACTUAL, named, economics concept of the kind you can study. Which means that Gabi will NOT have a win until AND unless the writter arrives to the point of teaching you the concept of "consumer surplus maximization" (customers rejecting en masse an inferior product in favor of a better one). He might very well go for the route of teaching you "profitable deception" and/or "false economy" instead (customers choosing the worse poduct en masse, instead).

And now I'll sit back with my popcorn to read the pontifications of the Dunning-Kruger internet experts about what I just wrote and how their favorite economics system always leads to the first concept and how their hated one always leads to the other ones, and how never, ever is viceversa :-D

Posted on 03 March 2026, 13:30 by: Neeckin

Be funny is she and chief end up getting together

Posted on 07 March 2026, 21:36 by: Blacky-kun

You are all beyond saving.

Posted on 07 March 2026, 22:00 by: mastersnipe25

@erana, page 94 is good enough for me.

Posted on 08 March 2026, 03:09 by: erana

@matersnipe25 it indeed is, my good sir or maam. It indeed is.

Posted on 09 March 2026, 13:14 by: dsadsadsadsa

He grew attached enough to the characters to start making backstories for them, could you imagine if he just drops the whole market aspect of the comic to focus on that instead?

Posted on 09 March 2026, 19:52 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Orc romance is the opiate of the masses.

Posted on 15 March 2026, 04:03 by: xuelianhua

死亡并不属于无产阶级⊙ω⊙

Posted on 15 March 2026, 21:39 by: Lord_neah

Still wondering why there is only one girl wearing a top xD

Posted on 16 March 2026, 13:41 by: fefuentes2000

Sexy goblin in overalls?

Posted on 16 March 2026, 15:27 by: excize

My dudes, this thread is only slightly better than the comic

I hope the artist keeps up the hype!

Posted on 16 March 2026, 16:32 by: 821218cyw

上次看见还是在小黑盒里

Posted on 23 March 2026, 04:05 by: t-23ddddd

Commie ahh comic
But the characters are cuties so it’s ok

Posted on 06 April 2026, 00:18 by: grlt

Oh, it is starting to escalate.... Soon it will be Red Scarves against Brownshirts on the streets.

Posted on 22 April 2026, 13:29 by: Villhadig

I am already chambering that ascii middle finger I promised.

Posted on 23 April 2026, 22:19 by: Genoshia

Using a general strike to force a supplier that was over-charging you to let you vertically integrate them into your company.

Gabi is learning the lessons of capitalism Very well indeed. I can only imagine her new "accountant" will give her excellent advice on how to shore up the books.

Posted on 09 May 2026, 00:55 by: Antonym

Can't believe it took me getting onto the gooner website to find people willing to critically engage with the source material, I'm so proud of you all

Posted on 09 May 2026, 15:21 by: mojrim

Just FYI, fire fighters NEVER wear metal beyond stuff like zippers. That's a good way to lose parts.

Posted on 09 June 2026, 22:04 by: project_501D13R

pg. 106, the poor gobbos just can't get a lasting win.

Posted on 09 June 2026, 22:09 by: Genoshia

@mojrim The character you're referring to is the fire safety inspector. While it's likely he works with fire fighters, in some capacity, he's not explicitly stated to be a fire fighter himself. More like a cop/bureaucrat whose job is to ticket people for very specific crimes. As such, having a little bit of basic protection in a seemingly medieval-level society wouldn't be out of the question.

Posted on 09 June 2026, 23:37 by: mastersnipe25

@project_501D13R " but chief! is there a way gabi can pay an other way?" porn music playing in the background. what? this is a porn site.

Posted on 13 June 2026, 22:06 by: l4chuga

^ If only...

Posted on 16 June 2026, 22:00 by: Neeckin

Ah the slow corruption

Posted on 17 June 2026, 19:42 by: Joshex

Page 107, if Gabi were smart she'd consider selling repair work on existing wheels especially iron rimmed wheels:
pros: don't need to source the same amount of iron, the customer supplies the iron in almost usable form. - rust.
cons: wood likely needs to be replaced more often than not, it's more effective to buy new ones.

solution: triangular metal wheel spokes.:
cons: even more expensive wheels, heavier
pros: far more durable
additional con: greater times between purchases.

So? sell wheel insurance. the customer gets a discount (at manufacture price) on repairs or replacements so long as they pay their monthly fee. this works directly into "selling wheel repairs". and creates a steady additional income. the only thing Gabi would have to do is determine the rate at which wheels break given different environmental and stress factors such as weather and usage then determine the amount of wheels any given customer is insuring and create the insurance cost based on desired profits on those wheels over the projected wheel-life period.

Posted on 06 July 2026, 22:11 by: ZF7

Poor rat girl. T_T

Posted:	2026-07-14 15:26
Parent:	4035434
Visible:	Yes
Language:	English
File Size:	707.6 MiB
Length:	109 pages
Favorited:	1189 times

language:	english
female:	freckles furry gloves goblin lizard girl midget monster girl
other:	comic webtoon western non-h

Rating:		304
Average: 4.73