Serious question: why is it bad to be a champagne socialist?

[JawJaw]

Being a champagne socialist is apparently a bad thing. I am mystified about this. Can someone explain why?

Because wealthy people working for equality freaks out wealthy people who are loyal to their tribe.

The term applies to those wealthy people who espouse a certain hypocrisy regarding their how their lifestyle choices often conflict with their supposed socialist ideals. I.e. own second homes, kids at independent school, work in the city, reduce their tax burden via creative legal accounting etc. They will often opine at the plight of the poorest in society or climate change but would never want to actually love anywhere near said poor people or give up that long haul travel.

It's rich people that can afford to play fast and loose with other people's money.

It's all well and good to redistribute it when it's not you affected.

My take on it was silly posh kids that don't have a clue about real life choose to slum it and tell everyone else how to give their hard earned money away but secretly can always slink off to mummy and Daddy's pile in the country and live off their trust fund.

Who is saying that it is bad?

Champagne socialist and proud! Although Dd goes to a state school so maybe I’m not champagne enough.

I had nothing growing up, I believe everyone, no matter their parent’s status or wealth deserves a chance to live a decent life. Even if they can’t work for whatever reason.

No idea why it's used in a derogatory way as I think it is just a convenient shirt cut to describe a socially conscious left leaning person who happens to have wealth to some degree. I'm one of them

It’s about perceived hypocrisy. So people who might typically be accused of champagne socialism are successful actors or musicians or other public figures who espouse socialism and are therefore seen as having a strong social conscience and being laudable and unselfish but who have accumulated a lot of wealth which is invested in private property and equities; and employ accountants and financial advisors to manage their money in the “most tax efficient” way. A high earning socialist who gives money away to not-for-profit causes and who doesn’t avoid or minimise their exposure to taxation is not a champagne socialist. Paul Heaton is not a champagne socialist because he practices what he preaches even though he is an incredibly successful songwriter and musician.

Why does drinking champagne not match socialism? Serious question

Because in a society with total equality then none of us would be drinking champagne. The only reason some people can afford to buy loads of champagne is because they get paid considerably more than the people working in the vineyard, packing up the bottles, driving them across the border and selling them in the shop.

To me a champagne socialist is someone who will harp on about equality from their lovely big house but not actually be willing to pay the price for it (and I say this as someone who is genuinely left wing!).

Champagne socialists are people who have done well financially and want the rest of society to be given equality of opportunities which enabled their own success in life.
In a nutshell they want to raise the bar for everyone.
Wealthy Tories want to pull the ladder up behind them.

There’s nothing wrong with being wealthy per se.

@LadyCrumpet i don’t understand why you think being a socialist means telling other people to give money away. Being a socialist means wanting a system where everyone contributes according to their means. If a rich person chooses to give up more of what they themselves have, it has to be a good thing, surely?

Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and champagne is about being rich. So in a very simplistic way they are at odds each other.

Why wouldn’t they be willing to pay the price for it? A socialist knows that socialism means the rich contribute more

Some people believe that socialism means impoverishing everybody.

Socialists allegedly unfairly deprive the rich of their wealth in order to redistribute it to the undeserving poor.

The previously wealthy are thereby stripped of their ability to purchase and consume luxury goods like champagne.

However the perpetrators of this 'theft' are themselves rich enough to drink champagne and are therefore raging hypocrites.

Socialists, champagne or not, are also jealous and are "engaging in the poltics of envy." They're probably naive idealists who don't really understand how the world works. Rightwingers love those criticisms too.

To my mind it refers to the notion that you can afford to support redistribution of wealth because you will still have a fabulous lifestyle however much tax you pay.

My partner's statement 'wish I could afford to be a socialist' sums it up.

People who will face hardship by paying more tax are less likely to support it.

This is not my view, don't shout at me

Well if they are sharing their personal wealth with others then they are living true to their socialist beliefs.
I don't personally know of any that do that though so if they are out there, I think that's great.

It's basically those who don't practice what they preach .
Usually shrieking lefties

But champagne socialists don't do that. They just like to tell other people how they should be helping the poor people, with their funds while making sure theirs are untouched.

And it's usually other poor people they are telling to share.

Surely you must understand that ‘sayings’ don’t need to withstand rigorous interrogation in order to make a point?

there are many people who espouse political beliefs or who even do activist work that do not actually think through the practicalities of their convictions. They have grand ideas only.

i would put champagne socialists in that group. they want everyone to have more, but don’t want to give up their own wealth and privilege as part of that process.

That isn’t how life works. it’s children playing activist.

champagne socialists

I thought it meant they were hypocrites or the things they were pro don’t touch them as they are insulted.

one of my old neighbours was very pro immigration, left wing in certain things eg anti cars particularly big ones. But went on numerous holidays around the world, had a holiday home & if a non white youth walked down the road with a hoodie on he’d be on the street WhatsApp alerting the neighbours!

I was always dead against private schools but now I have a child with SEN who is at risk of being failed by the state school system and now I can understand why people choose to send their children to private schools in spite of their political beliefs.
I strongly believe that we should have a properly funded education system, but sadly we don't, and in the meantime it's understandable that people want to do the best they can for their children.

Similarly, the NHS is on its knees due to chronic underfunding and the tories selling off half of it to their mates... if people can afford private healthcare, or have the opportunity to access subsidised private healthcare through their employers, we should not judge them. Plus that means a bit less pressure on the NHS.

I am fortunate to be able to access private healthcare (through DH's job) but that doesnt change the fact that I passionately believe in the NHS and I think it should be properly funded and run so that everyone can access the healthcare they need.

Why wouldn’t they be willing to pay the price for it? A socialist knows that socialism means the rich contribute more

Socialism doesn't mean "the rich contribute more". In a socialist society there's no such thing as "the rich" or "the poor". In which case there are no champagne drinkers. Which is why champagne socialism is ridiculous.

I've known a few champagne socialists. They are all talk about equality but god forbid if their children start mixing with children from a council estate or a traveller child joins the class

Champagne socialists are people who have done well financially and want the rest of society to be given equality of opportunities which enabled their own success in life.
In a nutshell they want to raise the bar for everyone.

Thats not a champagne socialist.