Dissecting Discontent

How Incel Ideology Mirrors Socialist Thought

Certain political ideologies are underpinned by motives that are never made explicit. A prime example is the ideology of incels (an abbreviation for involuntarily celibate). Incels are a group of people – predominantly men, but also some women – who believe that the modern world has unjustly denied them companionship and intimacy. The incel ideology is underpinned by jealousy and entitlement.

The incels' predicament (as they see it) is as follows. Incels see themselves as uncompetitive in the romantic and sexual 'marketplace' in which men and women search for and offer romance and sex. In this marketplace, the most attractive men and women will find it easier to obtain a partner; such people are disdainfully called Chads and Stacys by incels. Moreover, because there is a higher demand for female partners than male ones, incels argue that women have monopolised this marketplace. For illustrative purposes, it could be that 20% of men have 80% of (sexual) partners. The least attractive 10% of men might never have a partner – some of those men might be involuntarily celibate, though not all such people are 'incels' in the ideological sense.

According to incels, the modern traditions and laws that enable men and women to have sex freely outside of wedlock are to blame for this, together with the individual people who use those laws and traditions to 'rob' incels of affection. Although so-called Chads and Stacys are peaceful people, modern societies enable Chads and Stacies to outcompete incels in the sexual marketplace, thus depriving them of affection. The incels argue that the resulting inequality in sexual relations harms unattractive people by, for instance, making them jealous.

Although incels argue that the modern world victimises them, could casual sex really be harming society? When a man and a woman have sex or form a relationship, they trade with one another, in the broad sense of that term: they engage in a voluntary interaction that both parties consider beneficial. Moreover, no third party is injured or aggressed against during that trade, so nobody is harmed. Since the two parties benefit from the trade or are at least as well off as before, and nobody else is harmed, the trade is overall beneficial – it created a Pareto improvement. The jealousy that other people might feel is predominantly self-inflicted, mainly stemming from their ideology.

Underpinning the incel ideology is entitlement and jealousy – particularly jealousy towards attractive people. The explicit components of the ideology justify that entitlement and jealousy in three key ways: it explains (1) why the incel’s lack of affection is not their fault because (2) they are victimised by attractive people who ‘steal’ the affection the incel is entitled to, and (3) this problem can only be solved by a complete overhaul of the modern world and a return to tradition. In reality, no harm has befallen the incel, except perhaps for the damage done by his own ideology, which keeps him stuck.

This line of argument resembles left-wing ideologies, particularly socialism, where the role played by 'attractive individuals' in the incel ideology is replaced by the 'rich' in socialism. For example, according to socialism, when the rich engage in peaceful trade with one another, they increase inequality in society. This inequality destabilises society because it makes the less-affluent jealous of the rich, a problem that can only be solved by completely overhauling the modern economic order, claim the socialists. Alternatively, socialists claim that the rich ‘steal’ from the poor via trade, a conclusion that follows from the labour theory of value (which is false and merely justifies jealousy), just as incels claim that their affection has been 'stolen' from them, where 'stolen' is used in a metaphorical sense, as no one actually stole any property.

I find a certain kind of argument intriguing: the argument compares two seemingly different things, shows they're the same in some important respect, and forces us to change our minds about one of the two things being compared. I hope to have done that by comparing incel ideology to socialism. Anyone who believes in one of these ideologies and not in the other should explain why the above-described arguments made by one of them succeed while those of the other don’t; I claim this is impossible.