You’re sitting alone in your bedroom, endlessly doomscrolling on Reddit/X/Bluesky. It feels like everyone else but you have their act together and the world is leaving you behind. You want companionship and friendship; a space to learn and explore in; to bond with people and find solutions to your emotional struggles. You turn to the Left looking for this space…and you’re told “it’s not my job to educate you”. So you look to the Right, and they say “come here \- you won’t be a loser with us.”
\------
The modern left is starting to earn a reputation for missing the “social” part of the word “socialist”. You’ve probably heard the phrase that “the left has ‘let young men down’” and that Gen Z are in the throes of embracing fascist ideologues and pickup artists. While some of this is sensationalist, there is a critique worth interrogating: *the left should be the natural place for these people to turn, as its solutions are geared specifically for making their lives better. But the left is terrible at selling those ideas and building inviting social spaces for the uninitiated (to the extent that it seems some actively don’t want to sell those ideas). The right, on the other hand, has outright destructive ideas that will actively worsen these people’s lives. Yet the right is consistently more effective in building out this support base and winning uninitiated people over.
Why is that?
Today we explore why it is so important to sell socialism effectively, and what the left can do to make inroads \-- by learning from the right’s playbook. To do that, we’ll start by looking at the notion of aspiration.
What are Aspirational Social Spaces?
People join social spaces for a number of reasons: community, commiseration and a sense of belonging to something bigger are key ones relevant to our discussion. Even those who’d consider themselves antisocial (at least in physical interactions) are likely to lurk within communities that provide them with something emotionally fulfilling (even if it’s functionally just a dopamine hit).
However we can contrast what I’d call “Aspirational” communities with “Casual” ones. Casual ones provide a space to chat and engage with the subject matter, but aspirational ones offer a sense of progress and a pathway to self-improvement. They offer people something to continually strive for.
For example, we can contrast a baking community where people share photos and recipes of interesting baked goods to a fitness community where members share progress photos and discuss how to improve their workout routines. The latter has an explicitly aspirational pull: the drive of the community is that by being part of it, you are held accountable to making progress and can be inspired by others making the same journey. Members further along are figures to aspire to be: feedback and advice is in service of self improvement within a community all pulling in that same direction. There is a yin-and-yang of individualism and collectivism present in these communities, as people participate both for personal gain, but also for the sake of the shared community spirit: that spirit is essential to maintaining cohesion and encouraging others to be their “best” selves.
This aspirational component is critical for pulling in the lost and disaffected. People who feel like they are “losers” in some material sense are not only looking for discussion or critique, but actionable solutions to stop them from being “losers” any more. They may not know exactly what they are looking for \-- hence why they need the community guidance and roadmap to improvement \-- but they know that they want a community space that offers growth, purpose and figures worth looking up to: something that feels worth aspiring to.
The Left’s Social Spaces: Critique without Aspiration
There is a rich plethora of left wing spaces dedicated to effectively critiquing capitalism, reactionary politics, conservative media and right-wing thought-leaders. But cohesive left-wing aspirational spaces are a much more impoverished landscape.
Contrasting leftist ideology with reactionary ones is helpful, but only part of the puzzle. The real difficulty for people is knowing how to live each day authentically and effectively as a progressive. If, like the prospective fitness community lurker, one is looking for the blueprint of aspirational leftist figures to emulate and lifestyles to adopt, where do you go? Watching streamers, Breadtube videos and longform video essays makes for good edutainment, but offers very little in terms of lifestyle guidance and aspirational vision on how to live.
Some of this is understandable though: progressivism involves not pigeon-holing people into archetypes, yet this is ultimately what aspirational figures are: archetypes of how we hope to be. The right are more easily able to deliver these types of figures because it coheres with their notions of natural hierarchy, structure and purpose for people in society. Whether it is the womanising alpha male (an archetype of romantic success), the religious family protector (archetype of moral success) or the confident and successful “self-made” entrepreneur (archetype of financial success), the right has clear figures in their circles to aspire to be. In contrast, the left struggles to present figures (or communicate lifestyles) that feel aspirational, as opposed to intellectual or academic.
What if I say the wrong thing?
This problem is compounded by the perception that left-wing spaces are especially censorious when it comes to discussing certain topics (note: how often do you hear the critique that you “can’t talk about immigration without being called ‘racist’?”). Progressives may argue that this isn’t true, but from the outside looking in, it often feels as though making mistakes will lead to harsh social ostracisation and blowback. This is what people mean when they say “cancel culture” \- it isn’t celebrities “having their careers ruined”, but the fear that ordinary people are treading on eggshells when engaging online, because there is no clear community in which to learn the new (seemingly changing) parameters of discourse.
Someone new to progressive spaces will find this exhausting, and paradoxically, may find the rigidity and clear rule structure of socially conservative spaces more appealing. They may not be accepted for who they are in those spaces, but they feel on the surface that it is easier to navigate. Even if you don’t like where you are, you at least “know where you stand”, so to speak. There is space to “make mistakes” for the politically disengaged (and uninitiated) who haven’t honed their rhetoric radar to recognise right-wing dogwhistles.
The Challenge: Creating Spaces for Growth, Not Just Critique
Let’s be crystal clear: the goal is not to allow reactionary ideas to permeate leftist spaces under the delusion that it helps “heal the divide”: it does not. What this is about is creating aspirational leftist social spaces which:
- Are principled in our ideals without compromising them
- Connect with people’s individual anxieties and deliver actionable self-help to improve their lives
- Allow people the space and grace to ask genuine questions and make mistakes without fear of outright rejection.
The new member of a fitness community needs a space to learn how to exercise and eat: to learn what exercises work best for their body and how to diet appropriately for the ideal physique that they want. If they fear that posting their progress pictures or diets will get them ostracised, they will not participate in that community. They don’t need to just know why their eating of certain foods is unhealthy: they need actionable steps and encouragement to eat better and work hard.
The challenge of leftist spaces is to do the same for progressive ideals. It isn’t enough to just explain why the world is broken with sharp analysis. People need to know how to fix and improve their own lives within that broken world, because no-one knows the timeline on which the world can be fixed, and we all want a better life long before that time comes.
But for spaces to truly be alive, we need role models within them that act as community pillars. For appropriate guidance, there should be people who embody these progressive values in an attractive enough way for people to want to emulate. How might such people look?
Leftist Aspirational Archetypes
The examples that I gave for the right-wing archetypes all spoke to an insecurity or anxiety that people have in society: social/romantic, ethical and financial successes are often the perceived determinant of one’s worth, and so people understandably worry about meeting those ideals.
In a socialist society, the economic anxiety and alienation would be ameliorated as a factor, but social and ethical “success” are still unclear components on how to strive for. The economy covers leftist ideals as an academic pursuit, but as I said earlier: living an authentic leftist or progressive life takes work. People want practical virtues to learn, exercise and live by. In that respect, can we think of positive archetypes that appeal to people with the highlighted anxieties?
I’m going to outline some proposals, but just to pre-empt some concerns: these are stereotypes, but they are not hard boxes to push people into. The aim is for these to be broad, aspirational ideas that give people something more concrete to latch onto and pitch their progressive journey in the direction of. I also don’t have an answer on how best to cultivate communities that would make these archetypes most palatable to the uninitiated. Here I am just giving suggestions aimed at counteracting existing right-wing archetypes, to see if there are left-wing alternatives that could be made more attractive to people who might consider them.
Perhaps you may already know of communities or people who embody these characteristics?
The Considerate Sexual Extrovert
The progressive challenger of the “alpha male pickup artist” is someone that demonstrates success in the romantic and sexual arena through their liberal and progressive values. The antidote to the “conquest” driven perspective of the pickup artist is the person who sees relationships as mutually consensual, emotionally fulfilling experiences that are grounded in respect. Being thoughtful and considerate of others' sexualities, expressions and kinks (allowing for a safe space for others to be comfortable revealing their true selves) takes patience, kindness and emotional maturity, which in turn are highly attractive qualities that prospective partners will desire.
I use the term extrovert slightly provocatively here: this archetype is certainly not out of the reach of social introverts. This person doesn’t loudly announce their sexual dispositions to the room (at least, not without suitable prompting) nor do they seek to draw everybody’s attention to how “liberated” they are. Instead we are imagining a person that is unphased and easygoing when it comes to sex and relationships: the opposite of prudish and rigid.
This also doesn’t mean that such a person needs to be committed to any and every sexual act or romantic configuration imaginable. They could be adventurous or quite vanilla: either way, they are comfortable in their own skin, conscious of their own boundaries and are firm in asserting those boundaries when the time is appropriate.
This archetype serves to help the sexually and romantically dispossessed: the people most likely to turn to red-pill or incel communities to commiserate over failures to attract partners. A leftwing counter to those options should allow them to find partners and see “success”: the lens through which that success is understood though is not of conquest or conformity to societal expectations of masculinity or femininity. Success is through truly understanding one’s own wants and desires and being effective at learning (and being understanding of) others.
The Socially Conscious, Ethical Sage
People look in many places for “moral guidance”. Some look to friends and family; some to religion, others to philosophy. There is an understandable inclination to want to feel as though your actions cohere with some set of principles which are, in some sense, “good”.
The “religious family protector” archetype is not a strictly conservative one, but it is an easy image for conservatives to invoke because it appeals to certain rigid, hierarchical ideals over one’s place (particularly that of men’s) in society. There is this idea that a “strong” man is a man who raises a family and can “put his arms around them” like a bear protecting their cubs. It’s a comforting and attractive image, and I’m definitely not seeking to poh-poh it here. What I’m seeking to do instead is outline an image of a morally aspirational character that isn’t pinned to this notion of hierarchy (and hence can be more inclusively aspirational).
Consider instead a person who is confident and fearless in speaking out against injustice on behalf of the marginalised. An effective communicator that makes ethical points sound like common sense and not just abstract theory. They can do this because they are capable of empathy: they can mentally put themselves into the shoes of others and understand why they’d disagree, but still have a firm grasp of how to treat people fairly and equitably. They will passionately defend their own points because they believe in them sincerely and live by their own ideals.
This person is a role model because they don’t “virtue signal”: they simply live with practiced virtues, which others see and wish to emulate. They are practical and compassionate; they help others, they take reasonable steps to minimise the negative impacts of their consumption under capitalism, and advocate for others to do similarly (without being preachy, aggrandising and off-putting).
In an ideal world, this person might even be capable of reclaiming bastardised labels and terms like “woke” and “SJW”, to make them rallying cries rather than cringey and embarrassing pejoratives. Some may feel like these terms are beyond saving, but irrespective of how feasible that may be, transforming them is arguably worth considering as a “north star” goal. Language is one of our most powerful tools for crystalising and communicating ideas, so ceding terms to bad actors is extraordinarily disadvantageous. Is it not more aspirational to feel as though you’re capable of taking back control of those meaningful words and to use them to describe positive things that matter to you? To feel as though discourse can shift back in progressives favour slowly through the virtues that you practice each day?
This archetype serves to give a model for effective ethical behaviour whilst counteracting the idea of the “annoying, sanctimonious activist”. The ethical sage is wise and cares about persuasive communication, but puts their beliefs into practice daily. They make “good” behaviour seem easy, natural and worth copying.
The Hard-Working Unioniser
Financial success, especially under capitalism, is often imagined as the purview of bosses, owners and CEOs. These are the typical models that we are meant to aspire to if we are expecting to “make it”. But central to socialism is the idea of the economy being centred around workers and the value that they deliver to society. So why not have an aspirational archetype of what this worker should be, and change what success looks like?
A hard worker is competent and takes pride in their work or profession, regardless of what that may be. Whether it is as a cleaner, delivery person, bricklayer, waiter, lawyer or doctor: the worker understands that their labour is the engine of the economy, and so what they do matters. There is honour in an honest day’s work, so they never look down on others for their profession. They know their own self worth financially, and are not willing to be undermined by bosses that seek to exploit that labour. This ideal worker is likely unionised, or seeks to work in places that have a worker-coop structure of self governance. They place a high premium on democracy and solidarity with their co-workers, advocating for fair working conditions and pulling their colleagues up (and never the ladder).
They could never be judged as economically “illiterate”: they have a clear understanding of money, how it flows through different sectors and why it is so important for hard work to be appropriately compensated. This person demonstrates that financial success is not a question of how large your bank account balance is: financial success is a shared goal for everyone, brought about by an economy that puts workers first \-- by respecting them, compensating them fairly for their labour and allowing them to feel real civic pride for what they deliver for their community. Financial security is guaranteed here through collective stake in the workplace (e.g. worker coops have their workers collectively own the firm or democratic decision making in the firm) as well as policies that protect workers rights (e.g. rights won through union action). Emphasising this point serves to pull in sceptics who believe that commitment to socialism is to commit to being poor: far from it, this worker understands that we are all better off when we are given what we are owed for our labour, and it is workers who must advocate for this.
It also challenges the purported “meritocratic” arguments that are made for business owners being more “deserving” of their wealth: the unioniser is beyond repute for their merit and work-ethic, and creates more value for their workplace by collaborating with and uplifting their colleagues. Their commitment to workplace democracy is also a far better illustration of meritocracy, as the workers themselves are the ones who make the decision on how the firm should run. If you are deserving of power, you earn it from your colleagues. What could be more aspirational than that?
Conclusion
Here I’ve argued the case that there is a gap in the market for aspirational left-wing lifestyles and role models, and that this is an overlooked component of how to pull in new supporters for progressivism. To give some life to these ideas, I’ve sketched some crude (but hopefully helpful\!) archetypes with the intention of giving a basic illustration of how these types of figures could look as (and when) they emerge. The list is definitely not exhaustive (and is subject to criticism\!), but it at least provides a starting place for future discussions.
Key to all of these archetypes is something that is quite distinct from the right-wing framing: there isn’t a visual component to any of them. There is no physical build to associate with any one archetype. You should be able to see anyone embodying it. Anyone can live by these ideals if they try. It isn’t the purview of those who’ve met strict purity tests; those with particular genes, those that have dyed their hair a particular way or who have certain indicators on their social media profile. Key to the aspirational component is that any ordinary person can satisfy these qualities, so long as they choose to actively work to do so. And in doing so, they improve not only their lives, but the lives of those around them.
As to where this can go next: I’m honestly not sure, and am very open to ideas. You can’t just create a community based on archetypes \-- communities far more organic than that. Maybe people with creative inspiration can use these archetypes to design characters and write their own stories, which sharpen the aspirational vision and give something a bit more tangible to “normies”.
You might uncharitably* call this “woke propaganda”, but I’d rather call these…”progressive parables to live by”. “Selling” socialism means going beyond just critical analysis: we must offer spaces for personal flourishing, community and aspiration. The archetypes are just one piece of the puzzle, but the overall (hard\!) question is: how do we bring these spaces to life for the people that need them?
What ideas do you have? Let’s have a dialogue in the comments\!