Page 9 | Serious question: why is it bad to be a champagne socialist?

JawJaw · 2024-07-09T17:12:01+00:00

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

FinalCeleryScheme · 10/07/2024 10:19

JawJaw · 10/07/2024 10:09

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.

I’m sorry, but associating yourself with achieving female suffrage and the abolition of the slave trade because you’re willing to pay a little more in tax or NI or whatever is a bit comical.

I suspect you’re more than a champagne socialist: you’re a 24 carat gold, jewel encrusted, middle class virtue glory hunter.

Sondheimisademigod · 10/07/2024 10:22

JawJaw · 10/07/2024 10:09

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.

So really, you wanted us to define you

tinydynamine · 10/07/2024 10:22

The Labour Party is socialist? Well, blow me...

Dinnerdinnerchickenwinner · 10/07/2024 10:36

JawJaw · 10/07/2024 10:09

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.

I understand the idea of champagne socialism very well.

No you don't. Hth.

ladykale · 10/07/2024 10:46

ViciousCurrentBun · 10/07/2024 09:38

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.

What is it you want him to do? He probably pays more tax than most people earn... should he refuse to live in his parent's home?

Andante57 · 10/07/2024 10:48

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

@EasternStandard I think the op knows perfectly well what a champagne socialist. She just feels like having an argument.

ladycardamom · 10/07/2024 11:15

JawJaw · 10/07/2024 07:51

@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?

The fact you just referred to them as poor people proves the point. I think you are deliberate obtuse and show a complete inability to understand anyone explanation. It's like arguing with an anti-vaxxer. Pointless.

Citrusandginger · 10/07/2024 12:10

JawJaw · 10/07/2024 10:09

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.

I don't see it as being so much about voting but about whether they live the values they claim to espouse.

Proclaiming they are socialists and supporting education verbally/on social media whilst doing everything in their power to avoid sending their own DC to the local sink estate comp.

Wanting better public services, then paying their cleaners in cash.

Claiming to want equality whilst practising cronyism.

Lecturing about green issues, then flying first class.

A lot of people in show business and the media are especially guilty.

marmaladeandpeanutbutter · 10/07/2024 14:49

I don't see why your lifestyle need affect your political beliefs. It's a useful concept for Tories, obviously, a bit like that brain dead term "woke".

marmaladeandpeanutbutter · 10/07/2024 14:50

Also, come to think of it, it's a sort of amorphous, meaningless term. It can be shifted in meaning to suit the accuser.

Somerandomerontheinternet · 10/07/2024 16:10

Citrusandginger · 10/07/2024 12:10

I don't see it as being so much about voting but about whether they live the values they claim to espouse.

Proclaiming they are socialists and supporting education verbally/on social media whilst doing everything in their power to avoid sending their own DC to the local sink estate comp.

Wanting better public services, then paying their cleaners in cash.

Claiming to want equality whilst practising cronyism.

Lecturing about green issues, then flying first class.

A lot of people in show business and the media are especially guilty.

Show quote history

Yet more examples that make no sense to me.

Paying in cash doesn’t equate to enabling evasion! The view upthread that having an ISA is a moral issue is just peculiar. The government incentivises savings and investment as it helps the economy as well as people as individuals.

It makes no difference to emissions whether someone flies first class or economy so I don’t get why that’s hypocritical? I personally haven’t flown in years but at some point will go on a foreign holiday again. I do my best most of the time.

My DC would go to my local school if it met their needs but it can’t because the school has been starved of resources over the last decade and has a high turn over of poorly supported teachers. I can afford private school where my DC are both now thriving and get the differentiation/adjustments they need to support frankly quite minor SEN that a well funded state system would have been able to support in the not too distant past. I’d rather my taxes went towards a state system that was excellent universally and I’d happily pay more for that through higher taxation. Punishing my children by sending them to a school that let them down doesn’t help the other children near me who have no choice but to attend the school that my kids left (and who are also being let down).

EdithStourton · 10/07/2024 16:37

To me a champagne socialist is someone who preaches at you about the middle class 'sins' that you commit but they don't, while they happily commit different ones.

I know a couple who inherited ££££ and will be happy to buy houses for their kids, but see fit to bang on at people who put DC through private school or even (in one stellar case) had a regular go at a relative for working in a business which provided the ££££ that she was happy to inherit.

People who have lots of cash and vote Labour and don't preach don't bother me at all.

FinalCeleryScheme · 10/07/2024 16:46

There are some corking middle class Gucci socialist posts on this thread. It’s one for the bookmark.

Andante57 · 10/07/2024 16:47

It makes no difference to emissions whether someone flies first class or economy so I don’t get why that’s hypocritical.

Because God forbid they sit crammed in with hoi polloi.

Somerandomerontheinternet · 10/07/2024 16:59

Andante57 · 10/07/2024 16:47

It makes no difference to emissions whether someone flies first class or economy so I don’t get why that’s hypocritical.

Because God forbid they sit crammed in with hoi polloi.

Yeah, but the quote related to climate change.🫤

When I’ve flown I’ve flown economy but know that I pollute just as much as those in business or first class.

anonhop · 10/07/2024 17:03

I think if you're wealthy & a socialist, you should be using your wealth to help those in your community.

"Champagne socialist" to me is someone who makes all the right noises to look a certain way/ project an image/ maybe even thinks they believe it, but hands off my wealth!!!

There's also an element of very wealthy people voting for left wing parties because they can afford to pay a bit more tax & it doesn't bother them. Meanwhile those in the middle genuinely can't afford to pay any more tax.

Papyrophile · 10/07/2024 20:18

In my opinion a champagne socialist is the person who airily approves left-wing, or high tax policies, while knowing that their situation is comfortably insulated from any discomfort it might cause.

Didshejustsaythatoutloud · 10/07/2024 20:24

goingdownfighting · 09/07/2024 18:43

Non working class people with outwardly socialist views but whose lifestyle and actions don't match them.

This hits the mark🖕

Alalalalalongalalalalalonglonglilong · 10/07/2024 20:36

I know a guy who is often referred to jokingly by friends as a champagne socialist. He is middle class and well educated. His partner works in the community with at risk children, his corporate job supports this, it's not the area he would like to be in but as a couple it was the best they could contribute. They give money to charity if they have it and kids attend local schools. Then he lost his job and ended up working in a government dept doing something that went against his principles (not UK) and at one point was sent with a large group of delegates overseas in first class seats. His dept had been cutting funds for various projects, really penny pinching and talking about budgets. He refused to book this seat and insisted they all should be flying economy and saving tax payers money. He became very unpopular and ended up sitting alone in economy so he didn't exactly change the world but it's a good example of how those with education and influence are needed to speak for the ordinary person directly to those in power.

Citrusandginger · 10/07/2024 21:30

Andante57 · 10/07/2024 16:47

It makes no difference to emissions whether someone flies first class or economy so I don’t get why that’s hypocritical.

Because God forbid they sit crammed in with hoi polloi.

Because you have fewer people in first class so the emissions pp are higher.

But I think some people are being deliberately obtuse.

Gofastboatsmojito · 10/07/2024 21:52

Papyrophile · 10/07/2024 20:18

In my opinion a champagne socialist is the person who airily approves left-wing, or high tax policies, while knowing that their situation is comfortably insulated from any discomfort it might cause.

I think this is a much better explanation of it.

The people talking about high earners who pretend to be left wing but woukd begrudge an extra penny in tax are wrong IMO; I don't know any self proclaimed lefties earning eg 70K+ who would have a problem paying more tax if all high earners did. The point is they're happy to because the impact it would have wouldn't harm them all that much.

This is my definition, interested whether others agree or if I'm going against the grain

Namechange6485 · 11/07/2024 10:42

Maddy70 · 10/07/2024 08:57

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

Show quote history

But would you rather have a worse standard of living, poorer housing, education etc if that meant that everyone else's standards increased to the same amount?

Somehow I doubt it...

Namechange6485 · 11/07/2024 10:50

EmmaGrundyForPM · 10/07/2024 09:21

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

Show quote history

Would you still want a fair and equal society if that meant your standards of living dropped to such an extent to enable others' to increase to the same level?

(And it's not communism - see the definition as posted by a PP).

Namechange6485 · 11/07/2024 10:55

Dinnerdinnerchickenwinner · 10/07/2024 09:40

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.

Show quote history

Exactly - their money (earned via capitalism) protects them from the very policies they are voting for.

Namechange6485 · 11/07/2024 11:11

For those proclaiming to be wealthy and socialists...

As an example on an individual scale, just say you earn £100k - I guess you would then be happy to be taxed 70%. You would have a £30k wage, which in this society would be an okay, liveable wage. You wouldn't be able to afford a large house, private school, healthcare, expensive hobbies, luxury holidays abroad nor Waitrose, but you would be fine, as would everyone else in society.

The £70k in tax would partly go to an individual who didn't work so they would also have a living wage of £30k. The rest would go on education, healthcare, etc. It wouldn't be up to the standard of private schooling or health, but it would be reasonable and accessible to everyone.

That okay?