Tumgik
#renegade cut
futurebird · 10 months
Text
Do any of ya'll know the nice man who makes "Renegade Cut" ? It's a leftist youTube channel that's pretty good on some topics, but he seems totally unaware that mastodon even exists (or that tumblr has been as big of a part of this shift as anyplace else) -- even though, he does a lot of videos about politics and social media.
I think we should launch a charm offensive at the guy.
I'm very tired of hearing "reporting" about social media that mentions bluesky and threads but not any of the other options especially from so-called "leftists"
Honey what is you doin'?
10 notes · View notes
leo-fie · 10 months
Text
What makes a leftist?
There's a whole lot of leftists on the interwebs today, mostly Americans, and every once in a while we find out that a particular person (this week it was Ana Kasparian) is not actually a leftist at all and completely fine with parroting far right talking points.
And we notice that although they seem to have been an advocate for social justice and marginalized groups, they have mainly been reacting to whatever bullshit the right is pulling. Understandable,but not conducive to actually pass out the politics of someone. Being against the genocide of trans people in the US doesn't make one a lefitst, it just makes you a decent person.
Which begs the question: What makes a leftist?
For me it's anti-capitalism. It is also anti-fascism, but even liberals can be anti-fascists.
But anti-capitalism IMO is a stance you cannot go back on. Once you understand how capitalism works, once you grasp the underlying exploitation and the fundamentially incompatable interests of working class and owning class, you cannot go back. You cannot wake up one day thinking: You know what? The means of productions don't belong into the hand of the workers.
That is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a leftist. Liberals still uphold capitalism. They can be the nicest people and super involved with progressive causes, but at best they are ignorant and believe the lie that capitalism is just how things are.
It can be difficult to parse however if a certain person is an anticapitalist or not. Again, you don't need to be a leftist to be against the growing fascism in Europe and North America, against ecological destruction, against trans genocide, against police brutality, etc. That just makes you an empathetic person.
It is also normal to be confused as colloquially terms like left, socialism, anarchy, communism are used wildly outside their actual meaning. Not to mention the buzzwordsalad spewed by the right. Consequently being a leftist also means you have read up at least a little on theory and understand that for example Scandinavia isn't socialist at all since the workers don't own the means of production. That politicians like Bernie Sanders are just nicer liberals, social democrats in his case, believing in a mixed economy. That there are no viable leftist political parties anywhere in Europe or North America, no matter what they call themselves.
Being a leftist can mean that you fall into one of the many schools of thought between Marxism, socialism, communism, anarchism, syndicalism, or their various combinations or none of them. But it means you are an anti-capitalist and understand capitalism as the underlying source of all intersectional ills that plague humankind today. From racism, climate catastrophe, income inequality, nazis to war and Elon Musk. It's all connected. It's systemic.
Further reading/watching:
Hadas Thier - A people's guide to capitalism (great starter)
Marx / Engels - The manifesto of the communist party
Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine
Everything by Angela Davis, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Mark Fisher, Pyotr Kropotkin, Antonio Gramsci
Thought Slime
Renegade Cut
Second Thought
More Perfect Union
Unlearning Economics
Carlos Maza
The Leftist Cooks
Then & Now
NonCompete
14 notes · View notes
pumpacti0n · 1 year
Text
Renegade Cut - Why Riots Happen
Crucial notes here:
"The label of violence is something enforced by the state."
This is because a state is an area in which a monopoly of violence has been claimed by an occupying force. The implications are clear: who gets labeled a criminal or terrorist mostly depends on who is doing the labeling -- in this case the corporate-owned media, the police, the courts, as well as the citizens who are complicit with the state's definitions.
"The aggrieved party in a riot may have been incited by a particular incident, but their long-standing grievances include the maintenance of their poverty."
This is an incredibly important point! The media in particular has a nasty habit of presenting riots as these isolated incidents entirely separated from a history of oppression and social context. This allows the consumers of this content to ignore all of the actual causes of these events and assign total blame to the rioting individuals and not the systems that keep them impoverished and marginalized. This is an incredibly old trick that still works wonders today. It's like if a school bully decided the only important part of a story was the bit where you punched them in the jaw, conveniently leaving out the part where they threw mud in your eyes...every day...for 500 years.
"Riots occur when all other attempts at reaching a peaceful solution have failed."
This point connects to the last. We should never forget that there have been attempts to avoid direct conflict -- and they often do not work for a myriad of reasons. Red tape, lack of funds and accessibility, sabotage from reactionary groups, and so on. The history of oppression necessarily informs the tactics and goals of the people who are oppressed. If it were as simple as choosing the nonviolent option, provided it that it actually addresses these concerns in an expedient way, we wouldn't have riots at all. It's because of the failure of the social order to provide adequate peaceful solutions that address these concerns, that rioting becomes the means that are chosen. We'd only land on other conclusions if we don't take this history into account.
17 notes · View notes
sephirajo · 6 months
Text
youtube
3 notes · View notes
zenosanalytic · 7 months
Text
youtube
Watching This Video from Renegade Cut, and there's a certain extent to which I feel "neoliberalism" and "classical liberalism" are primarily propaganda terms.
Like: all those words mean in practical terms is "Conservative". "Classical liberal" subtly implies that markets, property, and hierarchy(disguised as "competition") -NOT egalitarianism, human rights, and rule of law- are the oldest and most fundamental aspects of liberalism, and Neoliberalism presents itself as a "New" form of liberalism... where markets, property, and hierarchy-under-the-mask-of-"competition" are given primacy over egalitarianism, human rights, and the rule of law. Conservatism, meanwhile, is a political movement which broke away from liberalism during the French Revolution because... they saw it as an example of how egalitarianism and democracy could threaten property, hierarchy, and markets, and they didn't like that. Like: when someone calls themselves a "classical liberal", what they typically mean is that they'd rather see a corporation make 1% extra profit than see the shared humanity of those it employs respected by the State, and that's just a statement of conservative principles.
Anyway just something I started thinking watching this essay that I wanted to share. This essay does a great job of expressing how ~Competition~ acted as a stalking-horse for private-tyranny via labor-abuse and monopoly in 1990s United States political discourse.
6 notes · View notes
strejdaking · 5 months
Text
youtube
Seems relevant.
5 notes · View notes
Text
youtube
If you're not familiar with this channel, please check it out. He does good work.
This video is in a playlist I use when I need something soothing and comforting to listen to.
4 notes · View notes
hellhoundmaggie · 1 year
Video
youtube
Don't play Hogwarts Legacy -- play *these* games instead! | Renegade Cut
7 notes · View notes
sordideuphemism · 4 months
Text
A great video essay on the Salvation Army
youtube
Renegade Cut does a great job on this one. I'd sooner give money to the USMC than the Salvation Army.
1 note · View note
hoochieblues · 1 year
Text
youtube
For the die-hard HP fans in your life. And don't forget to mention the fact that - in addition to financially supporting the richest TERF on TERF Island - this damn game is also anti-semitic af.
2 notes · View notes
icarus-suraki · 1 year
Video
youtube
Well, Thanksgiving is over so I guess it’s time to bring this back.
Home Alone: White Suburban Revenge Fantasy
I fucking love Renegade Cut. He’s so Leftist. It’s so great.
2 notes · View notes
genericnamego · 2 years
Text
youtube
3 notes · View notes
pumpacti0n · 10 months
Text
Hierarchy:
A system in which people, groups, or things are ranked one above another according to status or authority
if the hierarchy is a social system that ranks groups of people, the group at the apex maintains and enforces said hierarchy through economic or cultural coercion,
the coercion is justified through a paradox of self-justification
~
Patriarchy is more than sexism.
Heteronormativity is more than homophobia
Cisnormativity is more than transphobia
White Supremacy is more than racism
~
Patriarchy, heteronormativity, cisnormativity and white supremacy are the names used to describe these hierarchical systems
Sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism are words used to describe components within these systems
~
EGALITARIAN PERSPECTIVE ON PATRIARCHY:
A social system that enforces a hierarchy of genders is morally wrong, harmful to human beings, and must be opposed
If patriarchy is enforced, it can be dismantled and replaced
~
HIERARCHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON PATRIARCHY:
The hierarchy of genders is morally good, and upsetting this hierarchy is harmful to society (e.g., traditionalist family unit)
Patriarchy is not enforced, and therefore doesn't exist.
~
NATURAL HIERARCHY JUSTIFICATION:
Social hierarchies are natural outcomes and are devoid of malicious human manipulation
Ergo, social hierarchies are not immoral, and dismantling them is harmful and potentially immoral
(Both operate under some variant of the "just world fallacy")
[Source: Renegade Cut]
4 notes · View notes
greatwyrmgold · 7 months
Text
youtube
1 note · View note
fakeosphere · 8 months
Text
youtube
School Walkout 101: Protesting Without Getting in Trouble
0 notes
shivasdarknight · 9 months
Text
youtube
gestures at
0 notes