Seems to me that what provides the "meaning and purpose" is group activities with voluntary participation and mutual interaction. (For example, having hundred people in a cinema doesn't provide meaning, despite being a voluntary group activity, but having a dozen of them meet afterwards and discuss the movie does.)

The practical question is: who will organize these activities? Because there are costs (paying for the place, time and energy spent organizing), and the success is far from guaranteed.

If someone organizes group activities with a profit motive, they will probably want people to spend as much money as possible, which is often better achieved by preventing mutual interaction, so that instead of talking, people keep buying stuff. (For example many pubs have loud music precisely to make people talk less and drink more.) Online social networks are an exception, because the time spent talking translates directly into time spent browsing the website with displayed advertisements; but they screw up the "meaning and purpose" by trying to make people waste too much time there.

So it's mostly non-profit organizations, and of course churches. If you make both illegal, the state can provide an alternative platform.

I imagine that in a non-religious and non-communist setting, it would be the non-profit organizations providing platforms for group activities. But it would depend on the local culture whether enough people would volunteer to organize that. The difference between "a club on every street" and "most people complaining about lack of clubs".