"Yes, But It's Good" Leftism
Have you ever noticed Leftists lean into negative stereotypes about The Left as reclamation or subversive defiance instead of denying accusations of radicalism?
They’ll embrace terms like "Red Menace," or "Antifa," using them as badges of honor. You see it in memes, online discourse, and even political organizing. It’s a form of leftism I call “Yes, But It's Good” leftism—where people acknowledge the negative, destructive connotations thrown at them but, rather than provide any argument against them (or note that building on society is better than destroying it), claim them as positives.
This kind of leftism is essentially the valorizing of being a messy, offensive, and useless bitch. The philosophy of “Repulse everyone" prevents building relationships of trust (and therefore community) on that. It reflects the conflict between the envy and resentment that leads many to “The Left” and the actual pro-social, pro-historical development ideas downstream of Marxism.
The left wants to destroy what others have built and replace it with their own, but the Marxist seeks to transition from one stage to another, creating abundance while empowering everyone.
“Yes, But It's Good” leftism, is one of many leftist ideologies which prevent the bringing of any of “The Left’s” ideals to fruition.
Repulsion as an Identity
Leftists have developed a habit of embracing terms and ideas that are meant to vilify them, flipping them around into something subversively “cool.” The idea is that if you take the insults thrown at you and turn them into your brand, you’ve won. But have you?
This kind of behavior doesn’t attract new people to a movement—it repels them. It creates an insular, self-referential culture—a fandom (we’ll discuss that in the next section). The more media you consume—the more niche and specific your references—the more clout you gain within your circle. But hyper-specific, in-group social proof doesn’t mean anything to the outside world; people are left scratching their heads, unsure why they should care or join in.
This repulsion-based identity is a fundamental flaw. It’s not rooted in community building, solidarity, or empathy but in gatekeeping and elitism. And while it might feel empowering to say, “Yes, that’s me, the Red Menace!” it ultimately alienates those who might otherwise be drawn to the cause.
Many have called what I am referring to as “Yes, But It’s Good” leftism an “ironic embrace of vilification.” However, irony typically involves saying or doing something with an underlying detachment, where the performer doesn’t actually believe in what they're expressing. In contrast, many leftists who engage in this behavior are genuinely committed to the ideas and identities they’re portraying. They aren't just signaling for the sake of it—they truly believe in the cause.
When leftists embrace pejoratives in defiance, it’s not because they’re making fun of those labels—they’re reclaiming them as symbols of resistance. They’re saying, “Yes, you call us this, and we’ll own it.” It’s an attempt to undermine the power of those labels by wearing them proudly, as if to say, “You can’t hurt us with this anymore.”
While “Yes, But It’s Good” leftism isn’t ironic, it still becomes performative in a way that alienates rather than connects. Rather than building a movement with people over material interests, the thinking is eventually people will simply “get it” at some point—and when they don’t, they must just be bad people. Once this philosophy takes over (and it does so very early on after a few spats with people who do not declare total fealty), it becomes impossible for it to be anything other than a performance of one’s perceived superiority.
Commodifying Dissent
Just like fandoms are cultivated around consumer products, leftist identity is increasingly shaped by subversive aesthetics. The radical slogans, memes, and branding transform dissent into something one can consume and then signal their alignment with. It becomes less about materially challenging the systems of power and more about performing your position within an ideological hierarchy.
“Yes, But It’s Good” leftism is fundamentally an expression of consumerism, shifting attention toward signaling and identity. The politics of the left get converted into something people consume, then wear, post, or say to demonstrate they “belong.”
This commodification goes beyond individual identity. It extends into how leftist communities behave. Just like in fandoms, where members are rewarded for their deep knowledge of lore and unending dedication to maintaining the image of consumer demand, leftists gain clout by mastering the language and aesthetics of radicalism. But this clout doesn’t translate into meaningful political action—it’s a form of social proof that only holds value within the confines of the in-group.
Likewise, this fandom dynamic directs how they react when people deviate from the expected norms or fail to perform the correct signals. This is where we see Cancel Culture, which I sometimes refer to as a “Society of Subscriptions,” in which the relationship between people and their political communities mirrors that of customers and companies.
In a subscription-based model, someone is part of the in-group if they keep delivering the “right” talking points (praying to Our Lady of Perpetual Correctness for her assistance). But the moment they stop toeing the line—whether it’s because they’ve offered a nuanced opinion, raised a question, or simply didn’t repeat the preferred narrative—they get “canceled.” It's the same logic that applies when a TV show no longer satisfies its audience: “Season 1 was so much better!” and now it’s time to unsubscribe.
This is why “Yes, But It’s Good” leftism doesn’t build movements. It builds fandoms, and fandoms thrive on exclusion, not inclusion. If you don’t know the language, the signals, if you don’t subscribe to the same content, you don’t belong. And if you don’t belong, then fuck you, buddy! You’re part of the problem and you must be defeated.
Solidarity and the Importance of Materialism
Movements that change the world are built on solidarity, not exclusion. But rarely do we see people assert that solidarity actually requires an understanding of material conditions. It’s not enough to simply perform leftism by adopting a set of subversive symbols or by loudly embracing the most radical rhetoric. A capitalist can easily say all the same things—even mean them—but it doesn’t matter if that capitalist wants to preserve class (or at least the contradiction that causes class and Marx’s “crisis of overproduction”: the socialization of production with the private appropriation of product and profit).
Marxism, at its core, is about analyzing and addressing those material conditions. Class struggle isn’t about morality or ideals; it’s about understanding how economic and social forces shape our lives and the distinctions of power and then organizing to change them. This is what “Yes, But It’s Good” leftism misses—like other Left ideologies, it’s stuck in the realm of identity and performance rather than focusing on the material realities that actually unite people across ideological lines.
The result is a niche fandom rather than a political project. Just as fandoms exclude those who don’t know the specific references or inside jokes, “Yes, But It’s Good” leftism excludes those who don’t already speak its language or perform its identity markers. But true movements aren’t built on that kind of gatekeeping—they’re built on recognizing shared material interests, like workers uniting against unfair practices or communities coming together to fight for their collective well-being.
Conclusion: Building Trust and Real Change
If the left wants to make real change, it has to become something fundamentally different. The goal should be to attract, not repel—to build communities, not gatekeep. This means focusing on material conditions, addressing real-world problems, and creating a movement that people want to join because it offers something concrete.
My upcoming documentary, Horseshoe Theory Is Right (But Not How You Think), out on October 6th, touches on these issues from a broader perspective, examining how left and right is an ideological distinction between the ideals of the ruling class. But at the heart of it, the message is the same: if those who want change continue to define themselves through repulsion, irony, and subversion without substance, it won’t achieve the change it claims to desire. It’s time to move past the "Yes, But It's Good" mentality and build something real.
the youth version of the Dem’s college educated-only liberalism. their kids are enrolled in humanities masters programs to rebel against their parents with “yeah but our version has dense jargon,” (and requires a lifetime of student debt for non-wealthy ppl).
and as you point out, that new and improved radical liberalism fails every material analysis.