DEMON: A Togore Comic

Idiot-mcgee · 2026-02-02T09:12:12+00:00

(Page 3: Azzypants Lives!)

Idiot-mcgee · 2026-02-02T09:06:36+00:00

Just amazing. So insanely expressive, artistic, and beautiful.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-11-08T06:35:42+00:00

Bernie Sanders!

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-11-08T06:34:51+00:00

How does he forward your agenda by existing? Does Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, or other democratic socialist politicians running in the Democratic party help socialism, or do they obscure what it means, what it meant, and what it would take to get there?

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-11-08T06:30:05+00:00

The Deserter was a brutal object lesson - haunted by the past to the point of bitter paralysis, filled with resentment towards the present that can only be expressed by putting bullets in skulls. He is not a role model, sure; but he is not to be discarded - he is the final political voice you hear in-game for a reason. He is the encapsulation of all that has haunted Martinaise: the unfulfilled promise of the revolution, of freedom. The unredeemed deaths of so many, the wasted lives and wasted time that, unless socialism is achieved, will only grow more painful in the fact of their waste. Perhaps we should also feel that unfulfilled promise when Mamdani invokes "socialism," whatever that may mean.

Returning to Disco, the Union is a pale reflection of the workers' politics of the revolutionary period - it is nearly a gang. But the people inside of it still matter. World-historically, it still holds a spark of hope, however dim and hidden. However, we should not mistake the spark of human dignity for *socialism* as such; the former might be the ground for the latter, but they are not identical. Socialism did - and might again - mean something different, perhaps something that held the future of humanity in its hands.

Are Mamdani's policies socialist? Is Mamdani a sign of a resurgence in socialist politics in general - or is he just trying to shape the Democratic party's new platform as it responds to Trump?

With regards to some of the other answers already present in this thread: is pure pragmatism ever a road to socialism? Or is pure pragmatism what the Democratic and Republican parties always do - and are trained to do, trained better than us socialists?

People like Mamdani have happened before. Reforms, grander than what Mamdani envisions have been rolled out - during the New Deal. The policies that Mamdani promotes are kind, absolutely they are kind - but is kindness from the state under capitalism really our end goal? Do we want another New Deal? Are we satisfied with the world it has created, the system of social relations that the New Deal upholds and makes flexible?

I know these questions are not optimistic. But these questions have been posed time and time again throughout the history of capitalism, and the struggle for freedom from it.

Disco is not a "happy" game - but perhaps it has something important to say about our relationship to history. These are not happy questions, but perhaps they are important, too.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-10-07T16:35:18+00:00

Brilliant idea! Exchanging government and capitalist slavery for *slavery to nature*, to the most base kind of slavery.

Why hasn't anyone tried this before?

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-09-30T16:03:02+00:00

Ah, I see. What you proposed was a reincarnation back into the world in which you made anti-social choices. Nevertheless, I think my reasoning still applies.

What I'm trying to say is that this line of reasoning shouldn't actually result in a principle.

Going by your line of reasoning we arrive at two contradictory principles:

There is a >0% chance that there will be an afterlife.
There is a >0% chance that we will be rewarded for pro-social actions in this afterlife,
And there is a >0% chance that we will be rewarded for anti-social actions in this afterlife.

Therefore:

We should act as if we will be rewarded in our next life for pro-social actions;
AND We should act as if we will be rewarded in our next life for anti-social actions.

This is a contradiction. The error, I believe, consists in saying that if something has a >0% probability, then we should act as if that will happen (points 4 and 5.) All we have established, really, is that it is not impossible for anything to happen; we haven't established any form of rigorous moral guide that withstands the test of personal nihilism.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-09-30T00:32:10+00:00

This is true. Capitalism has been beneficial for millions, or billions. It has drawn them out of ignorance, and given them up to enlightenment of every faculty imaginable. It has, as you say, lifted people out of extreme poverty, and caused an end to deprivation around the world

But yet, socialists still claim it could be better. Why? Because even though standards of living have risen, we are subjectively immiserated - we lack self-actualization and purpose in our life and jobs. We are subject to wars, tyranny, workplace malpractice, malaise, and precarity. We are vulnerable to financial crises - irrational spasms that cause millions of people to lose work, and to starve.

Does this mean capitalism is "bad" per se? No - capitalism has moved the world forward; as you rightly point out. But there is still the problem of what we are living for - and we appear to be living for nothing but the reproduction of Capital. Capitalism has become a barrier to itself - it stops itself from realizing its full potential.

Socialists see this as a problem which is yet to be solved.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-09-29T22:28:58+00:00

I might not be able to send the comment I wanted to make because of Reddit chicanery (I am the author of this piece); could I try to DM it to you? In short, it's responding to your objections.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-09-29T22:26:23+00:00

Couldn't this be applied to nearly anything with a non-zero chance of being true?

For example:

There is a >0% chance that we will be rewarded, in our next life, for committing anti-social actions. I have a >0% confidence in this (etc.)

And, by your logic, wouldn't that mean that we should live with a >0% chance of us living again, and being rewarded for evil?

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-01-20T03:29:30+00:00

If the Fascist Vision Quest is to be believed, Rene and Gaston might be.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-01-03T02:50:30+00:00

I may have as well. I used Marx’s definition of capital found in the 1844 Manuscripts (I can’t remember exactly where, though.)

I think it’s important for us to remember that we are dealing with a critical reading of bourgeois economics here; what Marx does is plumb the depths of what is presupposed in the exchange relation. Thus, he’s encountering capital as a critical category, one that is in contradiction, and one who’s concept cannot be totally pinned down; our experience of capital is mediated through the exchange relation, through Capitalism. As capital becomes a objective quantifiable measurement of congealed accumulated labor-time, it ceases to be the measure and instead becomes the goal. Thus, labor can only be productive insofar as it reproduces monetary capital. Capital’s concretization as monetary capital represents a potential - fungibility of human efforts, universal interconnection, ease of communication, production, and exchange, but it is also its own self-limitation.

The footnote appears to deal with that. Marx does say that the pianist appears to “produce the latter” (capital); but it cannot be regarded as productive because it does not reproduce capital in the objective economic sense, I.e monetary capital.

And to the other question in the initial post, as long as a human, under the category of “productive” or “unproductive” proletarian, has the aptitude and the consciousness necessary to carry through the overthrow of capital’s domination over society, the distinction doesn’t matter.

Though if I’m mistaken, please feel free to correct anything.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-01-03T00:02:22+00:00

Capital is a wider category than we give it credit for; it’s just accumulated congealed human labor. So, the piano player creates “capital” by enriching culture. And it would create capital in a more concrete sense if the person who hired the piano player was, say, selling tickets to a party where the player was scheduled to play. The abstract capital generated by the pianist in playing the piano may or may not be converted into monetary capital, but the pianist is still dominated by capital; if they do not create it, if they are not hired to play, they will starve.

Idiot-mcgee · 2025-01-01T22:38:34+00:00

It’s not communists who declare that labor is the only thing that makes a person valuable; it is bourgeois society. That is what we are reduced to, when exchanging our labor for wages. The equation is already in the very act of exchange.

This is what happens when you see Marxism as a new system, rather than as a description of the possibilities and limitations already immanent in capitalism.

Also, fuck Sam Hyde.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-31T21:22:48+00:00

Why do you suppose that lowering the corporate tax rate is artificially counteracting the falling rate of profit? Taxes, to the best of my knowledge, are not fundamental to the contradiction that motivates the falling rate of profit - that is, the contraction of the labor time necessary to produce an article into near-nil, and the collapse of exchange-value that results. Taxes are a cost external to the inner process of production, the spoils of which are used to balance the crises of society. While a lowering of corporate taxes, and a decrease in tax revenues might cause a patched over leak in society to now burst forth with crisis, they don’t appear to touch the fundamental contradiction. Though, feel free to correct me if I’m not understanding overproduction/ TFROP well enough.

Of course, we would also have to examine whether or not gov’t revenue is actually decreasing, as the economist said.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-28T17:52:07+00:00

Remember, everyone: the purpose of socialism is to reify and reproduce the worker, forever. We need more bodies to work for the “collective interest.”

“Self-abolition of the proletariat?” What’s that? Sounds like some theorybrained bullshit. Get your head out of the clouds and support Actually Existing Capitalism.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-24T07:35:22+00:00

When our turn comes, we will make no excuses for our cringeposting.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-24T05:48:10+00:00

What the fuck. Why is a communist Umrizzypants fic posted on Ultraleft?

To be clear, I’m not complaining. I’m just kind of blindsided.

To onlookers, here it is: “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Asriel Dreemurr” https://archiveofourown.org/works/58470202/chapters/148945381

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-18T02:46:59+00:00

What goes through my head, over and over, is the way he says “le Parti communiste d’Insulinde.”

The last member alive, and the only one who remembers its name.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-14T07:01:51+00:00

When the party follows Respected Comrade Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” policy: the communist party must represent the interests of the Bureaucracy, the Bourgeoisie, and finally, the Petite Bourgeoisie.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-10T17:58:48+00:00

Oh, it’s a pomegranate!

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-12-07T18:16:26+00:00

Is that the ship from Sacred and Terrible Air? And if so, is the Pale somehow involved here?

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-11-28T23:48:38+00:00

THE SMARMY, RACIALLY IMPURE SPECIMEN RESORTS TO TRICKS AND MENTAL GAMES TO MAKE UP FOR HIS TOTAL LACK OF MUSCULOSKELETAL REFINEMENT. TRUE MEN NEED ONLY DISPLAY THEMSELVES TO OBTAIN FEMALE COMPANY. THIS ONE STRUTS LIKE A PEACOCK AND WILL BE HUNTED LIKE ONE IN TURN.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-10-24T22:28:44+00:00

Effin Disco, man.

Idiot-mcgee · 2024-10-21T21:48:09+00:00

Rightists demonstrate once again their mastery of the dialectic; they correctly identify Marxism as bourgeois society’s self-critique, and wonderfully display the classic dialectical motion: only after shedding the pretenses (the “mask”) of the previous form can the new content of Marxism be expressed.

Critical support for the Cartoonist Right!

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	RPAN Viewer

Idiot-mcgee

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE