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?

I am curious, which socio-political theory/thinker are you drawing on to define socialism? Or what "flavour" of socialism?

My first post was tongue-in-cheek, but I was drawing (satirically) on Marx, Das Kapital. So it's entirely possible that you and I are talking about different things entirely.

The largest huddle of champagne socialists are in the entertainment industry, particularly actors.

It's not.

It's just a derogatory name for middle class Labour voters and supporters

It's elitism. You might support the redistribution of wealth, state education, and health care and feel sorry for "poor people." However, you couldn't possibly have your own children mixing with the great unwashed at the local state school. Heaven forbid you'd have to wait 2 years for surgery and recover in a 6 bed bay in a bed between 2 homeless people. You'd rather a naice private prep with "our kind of people" and your private consultant in a comfy room. If champaign socialists did use those public services, their educated and influential voices might more effectively instigate change. Champaign socialists also benefit from being able to pay for services that keep them rich and successful. It's all just a bit hypocritical.

@ladycardamom what you say does not make sense. If someone supports redistribution of wealth it purely and simply means just that. Are you saying that wealthy people are not allowed to be left wing? How strange. The UK is the most unequal country in Europe. That inequality is one of the main causes of low productivity. How do you propose that could change if only poor people are allowed to vote for the left wing?

So many on here falling over themselves to tell how comfortable and well off they are and how they would like to pay more tax but don't pay more tax, in fact they are probably filling their ISAs and trying to sort out how to get child benefit or free childcare because they are over the salary limit for getting them.

Right. You have written this as if it’s obviously a negative thing. Can you explain why?

Of course you can be left wing but there is no need to bray about how comfortable and well off you are

Champagne socialism is a phrase meaning you are hypocritical about wealth. It doesn’t literally mean you enjoy champagne.

It is a form of hypocritical virtue signalling, you are talking about a fair society whilst doing nothing personally to make one.

Hypocrisy used to be considered really bad; personally I still think it is.

Most people on this site are champagne socialists.

Having leftist views while enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. Labour Party voters who stereotypically live in big houses and consume highbrow media.

Just wait until the leftist policies take hold and you're asked to pay a penny more tax than you currently do for it all, then you won't be such a supporter.

The pigs only moved into the farmhouse a few days ago and they’re already busy explaining why they need to be sleeping in the beds. 🙄

What about if you party but don't drink champagne/alcohol? Is that allowed? What are you then? 😂

the champagne socialists I know are wealthy enough not to be affected by ever increasing taxes. Unlike the squeezed middle.
The champagne socialists use private schools and take several flights a year. Nothing socialist about that, but plenty of champagne!

Because it’s gross hypocrisy.

was thinking of Emma Thompson and then found this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045303/We-luvvie-rude-Tories-Richard-Wilson-Martin-Freeman-Champagne-Socialists-support-Labour.html

🤣🤣🤣

bollinger bolsheviks!
Loaded, professional would be working class (but wouldn't swap their 2 million house in Fulham for a council house in Dagenham)

they adopt socialism to:
"assauge their middle class guilt"

Yup.

assuage even

I agree with you op. Some don't like working class people becoming successful. They prefer them to stay in their box

They also assume that just because you've earned decent money that all of a sudden you stop caring about those less fortunate.

Please refer to the post at 08:18.

@Maddy70 ,

Socialism is nothing to do with caring, it is an about a belief in a system that all should be equally rewarded for their labours.

If you are a neoliberal you can genuinely believe that the richer you are, the better it is for everyone and that this is the optimal model for society. And you can care deeply about the poor and do a lot of philanthropic work. But you are not a socialist.

A genuine socialist would give away the majority of their wealth to equalise with the poorer,

Few (including me) are genuine socialists. Most of us lie on the spectrum of being happy to pay reasonable taxes to help those poorer, but not excessive taxes.

But if you continually espouse how awful the right wing is and argue for higher taxes, whilst not believing it will ever happen or impact you personally, and you live a luxury lifestyle, then you qualify for being a champagne socialist aka a hypocrite.

OP, you keep asking why it’s a bad thing to be rich and caring (I paraphrase). It isn’t, and that doesn’t make a person a socialist in any case. But that’s not what champagne socialism means. It means that someone is a hypocrite, a tiresome virtue signaller.

If you can’t see what’s wrong with that no one can help you.

I am more than happy to pay higher taxes yet believe its ok to have a good job nice house holidays while believing that those worse off than me should also have decent housing . Good education etc. What you are describing is communism

@Maddy70 ,

‘What you are describing is communism’

I don’t think that is right.

‘The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.’

Socialism is still about equal sharing.

Not sure why op keeps asking why when a fair few posts have covered it

Examples on here are eye opening. Champagne socialists are hypocrites because

• they “post about Gaza on social media but don’t do anything.” Like what? What is it that we would expect this individual to be doing? Brokering a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel? Should they at least simulate living under siege at the least lest they demonstrate “hypocrisy” by voicing concern about a social justice issue?
• People live in big houses in nice areas and don’t want to live in rundown ones. Again why is that an issue? Pay your taxes, living well and aspiring for better for everyone - how is that a problem? How does anyone benefit by someone with money “moving to a council house in Dagenham”
• Pretending to be a class you’re not. I’ve much more in common with intelligent professional people - particularly the new intake of women - who have just come into government from a range of backgrounds. There’s none of the vacuous ideological positioning we’ve just lived through - look at the state of the country, you are a government minister and all you’ve got is fucking pride lanyards and culture wars!

Champagne Socialist is flung about by the right (and hard left) because they are hung up on ideological positions to solve complex problems.