Since these terms are entering the mainstream and there's discussion around them, let me share with you what's up about them and help you orient yourselves better in the respective political debates.

The terms originated in the Red Pill community. Some claim they come from the field of biology, but there is no clear reference to established biological terms. The Red Pill Glossary (sidebar of the sub) has a useful definition, let's start there:

Alpha – Socially dominant. Somebody who displays high value, or traits that are sexually attractive to women. Alpha can refer to a man who exhibits alpha behaviors (more alpha tendencies than beta), but usually used to describe individual behaviors themselves.

Beta – Traits of provision: either providing resources or validation to others, women (and perhaps men). Beta traits display low value to women if they are are put on too strong or too early in meeting- giving without equity. Beta can be used to describe individual behaviors, as well as people who have an overwhelming amount of beta properties (opposed to alpha).

The first thing to note is that we can have a more consistent definition of "Alpha" and "Beta", if we refer to traits or behaviors, and not individual men per se. Basically, "Alpha" is "sexually attractive" traits of behaviors, while "Beta" is... we'll see what Beta is.

Now, the issue is that the same man can be attractive to a particular woman at some point, while unattractive at another. What's the deal then? Is he "Alpha"? Has he turned "Beta"? Or something else is going on and are these notions not well-defined?

The key to understanding what's going on is to acknowledge that women have two kinds of sex. You can maybe picture it because we men also have that notion, although not to the extend that females do. For us men there is sex that is great, and there is sex that is not-so-great. The distinction is orders of magnitude larger for women: there is sex with whom they (their ancient, "lizard-brain" in neuroscience) consider worthy of leading to reproduction, i.e. with a man of "high reproductive value". That sex they crave and pursue actively. I will call this, "Alpha sex".

Then there is sex that can lead to a million other things. E.g., a Luis Vutton bag (the example is not mine, it is famous evolutionary psychologist David Buss'). Or for keeping a useful, but no longer desirable, boyfriend or husband around. In other words, there is sex they are forced or prepared to tolerate. I will call this "Beta sex". (See also the discussion about "enthusiastic consent", it's precisely about this distinction.)

You can now discern the origin of the Alpha and Beta terms. It is a female notion. It refers to a female state of... well, not mind, but... psychological or reproductive state, let's say.

This notion doesn't map well to male, ontological notions of worth. We men might find someone to be a great teacher or leader or artist, but whether he is sexually desirable by women, i.e. "Alpha" or "Beta", is another thing.

To conclude, Alpha and Beta can be useful terms in order to understand the female sexual reality. As a man, you want to be genuinely desired, i.e. you aim for Alpha sex. Some men try to negotiate attraction, out of desperation, and this puts them in the Beta sex category - with all the trouble that accompanies it.

And why is this discussion relevant to politics?

Because the Far-Right has attempted, rather successfully, to appropriate the terms and conflate them with their Nitschean ideas of the Superhuman vs the plebes. Despite the irony of grounding their notions of masculinity to the female reality, they do offer young men a narrative that can sound plausible: "become Alpha and you get laid, you are not getting laid because you are still Beta".

And what's the Left answer to all this? It's a bit radical, so I'll leave it as an exercise. I'll just note that "equality" would mean equal opportunities for sexual gratification for men, and point to the fact that value for us men has a different notion than it has for women.