AIBU to conclude that it is not a crime to be a "Champagne Socialist"

[Rosaxpxp]

I hear this term getting bandied around as an insult. Surely it is better to be an affluent socialist than a well off Tory!?

Yes, there are plenty of these people around. Bleeding hearts, fawning over the plight of those more unfortunate than them,but never doing anything about it.
One in particular, lives in our area, we have good schools,low crime, lovely area, etc. Always complaining about the council and how it is run, and how terrible the rest of us are, for not sharing her political allegiances.Yet her own jewellery business is thriving and rapidly expanding, due to the terrible people she calls daily. Without them, she would have nothing. Hypocrites the lot of them. I am pretty sure if standards fell, she would be the first to leave!

I believe everybody likes very good things, nice car, nice house, nice holidays and access to good transport, healthcare and education. The socialist part is that not only I should have access to that. I believe everyone should. I also believe people should have to work their absolute backside off every single day and give their all.

That’s a very capitalist statement . One of the founding points of capitalism is that everyone (theoretically) should be able to achieve wealth through effort and “giving their all”. Socialism is more about everyone being afforded a basic standard of living and spreading the wealth, regardless whether someone is a high achiever or not.

I know someone like this! So left wing she’s practically a Marxist and yet is hanging onto a two bed flat in London whilst she lives elsewhere as an investment

It’s the hypocrisy that’s the problem, not what they choose to drink. Decrying private schools but spending an extra £50K on a house that’s in catchment for PoshComp High School to avoid the feral kids of fag-suckers who read The Sun.

I would call my landlord a champagne socialist. Very vocally labour but can’t see what a massive hypocrite he looks like while being a shit landlord scamming poor people.

Not heard the term Champagne Socialist for a while.

Those who are insulated by wealth, opportunity & privilege yet espouse dogma & proletarian leanings beyond what the majority of people who have to work with no safety net (other than the welfare state) considered reasonable. Then have the gall to look down, patronise or insult those who do what they can with what they have got, & make political decisions accordingly.

A prime example at work was listening to a very well paid CS asking why poor people cannot just go to the bank & borrow some money…no idea at all.

Nowt to do with the shopping basket at Waitrose/Lidl/Majestic etc.

Don’t get me started on Emma Thompson…
Well chosen example.

Pseudo-socialist is a popular way of describing it.
The far-left usually hate them more than right-wingers (who, unlike pseudo-socialists, are at least honest about wanting to keep hold of their property and power).
I suppose New Labour changed the definition of socialism, though, so I'm probably stuck in the past.

I feel like there's an equivalent of champagne socialist nowadays in the climate change movement.

So for eg you could describe Leo di Caprio as a private-jet-climate-change-activist. Sadly that's not as catchy a phrase 🤔

My understanding of a champagne socialist is basically someone who's a hypocrite. Like some Guardian-devouring middle class acquaintances of ours who decry private schools but didn't hesitate to rent out a flat next to an excellent state school in the borough for their application before ultimately setting on a selective state school.

Or bemoaning rich people etc but then happy to accept a huge amount of help (eg guaranteeing a mortgage) from their rich family members.

Honestly, I think it's just a way to keep people on their relative places.

Those with money are supposed to be upper class and Tory, those without are supposed to be working class and Labour.

The whole thing is rubbish.

I'd rather be friends with someone who had a lot of money, but voted Labour, because voting is the only way to change anything.

I also cannot stand the idea that voting Conservative is somehow aspirational, which it always has been. You can afford to vote conservative if you've got enough money to not need any social support.

Champagne socialism itself perhaps is not so much a problem if we are merely talking about someone who happens to be wealthy believing that wealth should be more evenly distributed.

Trouble is it is never their wealth they want more evenly distributed.

A lot of people I have heard using the term "Champagne Socialist" seem to be coming from the angle that you have got no right to be a socialist if you are wealthy.

That's not how I have seen it used, I've seen it used when describing someone who claims to hold socialist views (usually for their own benefit ie to look good), but their actions don't match what they claim to believe in. Ie someone who condemns the use of food banks etc but then have businesses that pay staff peanuts or exploit their workers. Someone who instead of learning about the social, institutional and generational factors that can keep people in the cycle of poverty or low paid work harps on about how hard they have worked and that anyone can achieve the same, whilst in the next breath saying they empathise and agree with x policy when they are actually ignorant to it and saying what people want to hear. Of course you can be socialist and rich and enjoy your money, but basically people who do it for their own benefit and are hypocritical aren't.

@BronwenFrideswide

Champagne socialism itself perhaps is not so much a problem if we are merely talking about someone who happens to be wealthy believing that wealth should be more evenly distributed.

Trouble is it is never their wealth they want more evenly distributed.

Also this!

@BrambleRoses

Champagne socialism itself perhaps is not so much a problem if we are merely talking about someone who happens to be wealthy believing that wealth should be more evenly distributed.

However, that belief almost unfailingly comes with a pious and often unrealistic outlook which lectures and hectors, which gives handouts and bestows charity on others, rather than working for better conditions for working people. I think that socialism on its own was not really the core movement of the Labour Party and it is a pity this has been forgotten.

All of this.

An acquaintance was bragging proudly about her socially-committed ds, who has been on Extinction Rebellion things. I asked what he was up to at the moment. Apparently not working as it’s contributing to a broken capitalist society. But, however, dividing his time between their London house and seaside place, before going skiing. Words completely failed me…..

@Deliaskis has it right I think: it’s not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with being affluent and left wing, it’s when it’s done in a way that fails to acknowledge the huge advantages having money gives you.

Private school is a good example: certain sorts of people who will buy expensive houses to be close to very good state schools and the slag off poorer people who pay for education without thinking through the hypocrisy of their position.

Or left wing posturing around certain trendy causes which have little relevance to you but win status brownie points.

That’s what it means to me.

Surely the term ‘affluent socialist’ is an oxymoron?

I think it’s a stupid insult thrown around tbh. It helps no one.

I think the private school one is interesting.

If you want the best education in this country, you really have to pay for it. And by the best I don’t mean the teaching, but I mean the facilities, the access to sport and extra curricular activities.

Now, as a socialist, I want that education to be available for every single child. Every one. And I would fight for a system to put that in place.

Would I send my child to private? Yes, because I want my child to have the best. Am I happy that I have to pay - instead of paying out of general taxation? No.

I would rather adjust taxation such that all children had all opportunities.

I don’t begrudge those on the left buying education for that very reason.

@AsYouWishButtercup

Surely the term ‘affluent socialist’ is an oxymoron?

What, like a working class Conservative would be? Or a Poor Tory?

@AsYouWishButtercup

No it’s not an oxymoron. It’s perfectly possible to be wealthy but believe wealth should be distributed more equitably and to work towards that goal.

You can’t limit people’s political beliefs based on their financial circumstances. You wouldn’t say it was impossible to be a working class Tory. You might feel they were irresponsible or selfish but you can’t stop them.

@Rosaxpxp

I hear this term getting bandied around as an insult. Surely it is better to be an affluent socialist than a well off Tory!?

I don't think that there is anything wrong with having money - it's what you're willing to do with it that counts. Anyone calling themselves a socialist and has money but is willing to vote in a government where they would end up having to pay more tax is still a socialist. The term was probably invented by right wing media publications.

I know a few people with sociaist views. A lot seem to enjoy the benefit of their family money. One works in his family business ( handed to him on a plate), one happily lived in his daddy’s flat years while working part time because that was all he wanted to do.
Meanwhile they take the piss out of my successful DH who has more centre right values, owns his own business and never had a penny of his parents.
It’s easy to be a socialist when you have money.

It's hypocrisy that makes someone a champagne socialist.

A very good example is the Lib Dem NIMBYs in leafy shires, who hold up a placard saying refugees welcome...but then campaign against new housing developments.

Or, like pp say, shout loudly about the benefits of state education, are vocally anti grammar, whilst secretly doing a Blair. Which was send the children to a state school but also pay for private tutors. Others will pay a premium to buy a house in the catchment area of a highly rated state school, pricing out less wealthy parents.

Crime no, hypocrisy yes.