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?

Nigel Farage would probably be a good example. MP for the most deprived region in Britain, claims to speak for them, but I very much doubt will ever live in the area.

Why is your virtue reliant upon other people being forced to do the same?

Surely every little helps?

But that’s not socialism. Any Tory could agree with paying tax. When well-heeled ‘progressives’ say “higher tax” they always mean “a bit more, but never enough that it makes any difference to me”.

Good question

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

But people just keep on repeating the same objections to champagne socialists Eg. that they are hypocrites. That really isn’t an answer. How on earth do you know that someone does not mean what they say? If a wealthy person actively campaigns and votes for a left wing government and is happy when they get in then how are they hypocrites? I know that will mean that life might be less comfortable for me because I am not stupid. But I am ok with it. Please explain exactly where the hypocrisy is.

To me it brings to mind the type who talks about ‘ordinary’ people, (not them or their friends/family of course) and are in theory against private schools, but either send their children to private schools anyway, or to a state one that happens to be excellent, because in the catchment area even a nothing-special 2 bed flat will set you back £1.5m.

But life won’t be less comfortable for you…because you’re rich, apparently. You have financial protection against modest tax rises. Many don’t.

If life did become uncomfortable for you, you’d change your mind.

When well-heeled ‘progressives’ say “higher tax” they always mean “a bit more, but never enough that it makes any difference to me”

@FinalCeleryScheme

How on earth do you know what people ‘really’ mean? How can you see inside their heads? If someone actively campaigns and votes for a party which will raise their taxes what evidence do you have that they don’t want that party to carry out its policies? It would be really weird to campaign for something you don’t want, surely?

This!
DH and I have a comfortable lifestyle but I'm a socialist. I want a fair and equal society. I believe in social responsibility , a good welfare system, and for targeted support and money to go to the most vulnerable in society.

I think a lot of people here are confusing socialism with communism

@JawJaw ,

If you would be genuinely happy to pay a marginal rate of 59% income tax, have CGT equalised to your top marginal rate (indexed) and bringing primary residence into CGT, you are not a champagne socialist.

If you have a luxury lifestyle and the reason you could vote for labour was their promise not to raise income tax, then you could be.

If you aren’t a hypocrite, you aren’t a champagne socialist.

50% , not 59%

Read those posts that have explained what the Champagne socialist is. You don't need any further explanation than those. How can you not see the hypocisy of saying you are 'one of the people' while living and working a middle-class lifestyle. They live in the 'lower-class, common' places, but have gentrified them to buggery so that no-one who actually lives there can afford to buy there. They want Costa's, chi-chi bakeries, and all the other middle-class trappings but think they are 'edgy' because they live in Hackney!

That's not to say they should give their money away (altho socialism is about equality), but they are loudly vociferous about their 'common man' prinicples while living with completely different principles
That's hypocrisy - not difficult

That’s the whole point. If these people sincerely opposed any wealth disparity - i.e. they were socialist - they wouldn’t be rich in the first place!

If the party you have in mind was going to tax wealth massively, the champagne socialists wouldn’t vote for it. They’ll only commit to what won’t affect them. If they were content to lose all their wealth they wouldn’t be champagne socialists.

It's because the phase is an oxymoron, the idea that you want an even distribution of wealth but in practice enjoy the good life. The counter oxymoron would be a "compassionate conservative", acting like you care about people whilst pissing on them from a great height.

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

@Newbutoldfather

So, campaigning for and voting for a left wing party = doing nothing to make a better society? How strange.

Serious question @Newbutoldfather and others. If someone makes money are they thereafter not allowed to vote for left wing parties because they would be a hypocrite?

So you can’t have a good life and vote so that others can too? How strange

I know a guy who falls under this category, he works in investment banking and lives in a house his parents own in London. He talks often about more tax etc and inequality. But that’s it he talks about it and he doesn’t do anything. So he seems ‘nice’

He is a friend of a friend.

Words mean nothing it’s actions that count.

No, it's that they have enough money that any changes they vote for won't ever affect them because they'll never have to deal with the reality of the policies they're voting for.

Dear god. Of course they are allowed
I think you really shouldn't botjer trying to understand this concept. After 4 pages and numerous explanations, it srill isn't helping.

You know all those threads complaining about paying VAT on school fees?
Some of them will have been posted by people who call themselves socialists.

They want redistribution of wealth to only apply to other people.

This

I'm a socialist every day but have champagne at weekends.

I understand the idea of champagne socialism very well.

There are so many ways in which society has changed for the better. Slavery has been abolished, women have been given a vote, a national health Service has been created. Nowadays almost everybody thinks these are great achievements. At the time, there was huge resistance to these changes. This resistance was partly manifested in the way people talked about those who wanted change. They called the campaigners ‘shrill’ or ‘aggressive’ or, hypocrites.

Change cannot happen without the support of those who will not gain from it. Many doctors who supported the foundation of the NHS were giving up lucrative private practice. Votes for women could not have been secured without the support of men. Not because those men were great or better people but because groups without power will get nowhere without the support of those who have power and those with a conscience know it.

Inequality is a huge problem for our country. Not simply because it is morally wrong but because it hampers productivity and growth. Those with power and wealth of course enjoy what they have and make sure their families get the best. That is human nature. But for things to improve, those who have will have to instigate the change, as they have done countless times in history.

I find it so strange that people seem to really think that someone with money is necessarily a hypocrite when they vote for a left wing party. How could you possibly know what someone thinks and feels? Why not just look at what they do?

The idea of the champagne socialist has been created to undermine the reality that there will be no change without those who have joining those who have not.

@Pudmyboy can you give examples of what kind of actions don’t match being a socialist?

In my eyes, things like owning multiple properties and using any form of tax avoiding vehicles (even ISAs) is not socialist. Specifically moving to get into a school catchment area also non socialist. Doing anything to buy advantage for yourself is non socialist eg buying fast passes at a theme park to skip the queues . Basically doing things where your money buys you an advantage over someone who has less than you.