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?

Is it possible to compare or contrast a Champagne Socialist with a Beer-drinking Populist?

Maybe they drink at different ends of the bar, but in the same venue?

It's about hypocrisy. They tell others how they should live while not living those lives themselves. Things like cheering for VAT on secondary schools or for the closure of grammar schools when they and their children went through that system. Calling for more houses to be built when they live in a large house with an acre plot and good local services.

there’s nothing wrong with being a champagne socialist, it’s just the left’s own obsession with moral purity. It’s human nature to accumulate and enjoy what you have. At least champagne socialists can see it’s unfair that other people have less than they have.

This. They tend to be NIMBYs too

So much accumulated wealth you can afford to be generous with everyone else's money. Especially if you've already benefitted from sending your DC to private school, made a mint on property & had an Oxbridge education yourself. The intelligentsia.

I think champagne socialists often have those kind of “luxury beliefs”. For instance supporting high immigration whilst never feeling the negative impact of a high number of immigrants to an area.

Or someone who detests private schools due to the inequalities but spends a million plus on a house in the catchment of an excellent comp.

Yes - I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are educated and (I thought) left-leaning, like me, and suddenly when it came to primary school applications, everyone wanted their child to go to the white middle class school in the expensive area - god forbid their kids should go to the more mixed schools down the road! I was pretty unimpressed tbh.

There are a lot on here, usually virtue signalling as well

Champagne socialists are virtue signallers. They don't know what it's like to be working class, especially someone who is a different race or mixed race. Most prominent Labour MPs are from middle or upper class backgrounds. Either privately educated or went to grammar schools in expensive areas.

’Socialist’ is usually a meaningless term among the better off middle and upper classes. They like self-describing as socialist because they’re terrified of being thought privileged.

There’s a big difference between someone who’s made themselves rich from starting a scrap metal business from nothing and someone who had their first flat bought for them as they pursued a career in the PR firm that Daddy gave them seed money for.

Champagne socialists are the ones who change their minds when real socialism comes knocking. They can afford a penny more on income tax - and would tell you all about how happy they are to pay it - but would find a bogus reason to change politics if the holiday home in Cornwall was going to be confiscated.

It’s pretence, basically.

For clarity, - it’s nothing to do with Champagne, the Champagne is a metaphor for wealth far in excess of need. Nobody needs to drink Champagne. Nobody needs £4,000,000 invested in a portfolio of property and equities (in private companies) or to register the production company set up for their globally successful rock band offshore to avoid corporation tax etc.

Socialism advocates that the state or workers jointly own the means of production and resources of a country and oversee equitable distribution of goods and services to its citizens. Equities completely go against this but almost all private pensions and investment portfolios will hold a lot of equities (shares in companies). Equities redirect the profit from companies to the holders of their shares, not back to the workers (unless they have bought or been given shares).

Socialism isn’t just advocating a bit more taxation. The U.K. Labour Party is not a socialist party, it’s just on the left of the spectrum compared to the Tories.

The champagne socialist insult is why Peter Mandelson said New Labour are "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" and why it made such a stir.

If you are left wing and poor then it's 'the politics of envy'
If you are left wing and rich then it's champagne socialism and therefore you are a hypocrite
Therefore the only logical position is being right wing.
I think that's the argument?

If you are truely socialist you should be leading by example and redistributing your own wealth. If you have money for champagne you could be distributing to those who need it more.

Yes, that’s what i would say too. Live right but vote left.

Wealthy people quite often say they would rather pay more tax in order to have better services and they vote for parties who would do this. It’s not odd or hypocritical, in fact it’s quite understandable and is accepted in other countries.

Someone who in theory supports the redistribution of wealth - as long as it’s not theirs that’s being redistributed (and they have accountants and lawyers for “tax efficiency “)
People who support immigration and social housing as long as it’s not in their leafy avenue.
People who assert that travellers have a right to their lifestyle choice - as long as they don’t park their caravans within 10 miles of where they live.
People who state that grammar schools and selective education should be abolished yet send their kids to private schools.
I could go on ….

Yes but the phrase 'champagne socialist' was coined as a negative one. It's used as a metaphor for someone whose socialist beliefs aren't matched by their actions.

But often what people say and do is completely different. I watched a video where a person went around asking should people be asked to pay more tax. They all went around saying yes of course they would be prepared to pay more tax if asked. They were then presented with a form to fill in which they could have elected to volunteer to pay more tax and it would be sent to HMRC. Suddenly they all had excuses why it didn’t mean them, it meant others more wealthy than them. Most Wealthy people will then use every legal measure they can to avoid paying the extra tax even if they vote for parties that wish to raise taxes.

Because they have benefitted hugely from their wealth and opportunities but want to take away those things from other people trying to do well. They tend to be people who have gone to private school, had a leg up on the housing ladder, inherited money and earn a reasonable amount. They then say they think private schools are awful, they don’t mind high income tax (less keen on anything that might devalue their house or investments) and that everyone who thinks differently is selfish and not as morally superior as them. The stereotype also tends to be a bit patronising and snobby about anyone who they think is not very intellectual but wants to make money. Their lifestyle is also hugely protected by the right wing voters that they sneer at.

If you are left wing and rich then it's champagne socialism and therefore you are a hypocrite

just being rich doesn’t make you a champagne socialist though?

I disagree. You can’t really believe in your own political views if you don’t live by them (but expect everyone else to, of course).

I think a Champagne Socialist is distinct from merely a wealthy left voter. To me, they're someone that espouses luxury beliefs that make them feel virtuous and only harm those worse off than them.

I think people who talk about "carceral politics" and defund the police fall into this group as they know they're in wealthy enough neighbourhoods to insulate themselves from violent criminals.

Also people who claim to care about social justice, but continue to fund the drug trade. Or people who claim its classist to teach working class children correct grammar, while knowing that it opens doors to their own children to have the right accent.

That's about it.
Poor people who want more equality are just jealous apparently. Rich people who want more equality can't have the jealous label thrown at them so 'champagne socialist' is used as some kind of slur.
I'm old enough to remember when 'do gooder' was an insult people used.