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!?

The French say Gauche Caviar. In America, it's Limousine Liberals.

Champagne socialists = hypocrites

Take my middle to upper middle class, privately educated (ex) uni friends, spent years living off huge inheritances, bumming round the world travelling, came back and joined the local socialist party barely doing a days work between them and living in some of the most expensive parts of the SE.

All they would ever discuss at dinner parties is how the rich fat cats are destroying the world, inheritance should go to the state, private schools should be abolished blah blah blah, totally blind to their privilege.

Absolute hypocrites and no longer friends of mine.

It's a term we have always used for the hypocritical socialists - the ones that send their children to private schools but consider a failing comprehensive good enough for everyone else.

The ones who want to raise taxes but have their own money safely tucked up in tax havens etc etc

Listen to the podcast with ex footballer and business man Gary Neville and Nick Robinson about the so called ' champagne socialists' and what it means
He made some excellent points about why they shouldnt be written off .

Why can't someone with money be a socialist ?
What I liked about Gary Neville was his honesty!
Yeah, I'm rich but I care too,
It was enlightening to be honest.

@CaptaNoctem

It's a term we have always used for the hypocritical socialists - the ones that send their children to private schools but consider a failing comprehensive good enough for everyone else.

The ones who want to raise taxes but have their own money safely tucked up in tax havens etc etc

People who are socialist and use private schools do want that for everyone ffs

@the80sweregreat

Why can't someone with money be a socialist ? What I liked about Gary Neville was his honesty! Yeah, I'm rich but I care too, It was enlightening to be honest.

But if you genuinely care, are genuinely, learning about the issues, are actively trying to make things better, for others then you aren't a CS.

Or at least thats always been my understanding of it.

Tbh I actually admire them. I'm of a background and income bracket where socialism is in my best interests, so my ethics have never been tested. To vote for something that brings you less benefit because you feel its the right thing is laudable in my view.

@the80sweregreat

Why can't someone with money be a socialist ? What I liked about Gary Neville was his honesty! Yeah, I'm rich but I care too, It was enlightening to be honest.

He’s either an opportunist or as thick as mince if he thinks that is the meaning of champagne socialism. Being thick as mince also means he will fit right into the current cohort of Labour Party. Gary Neville is a prime example of someone who benefitted from a free market industry.

If you are an affluent socialist you are in all likelihood hypocritical and cynical. How can you not be?

There's no contradiction involved in being a well off Tory

HTH OP

@Iggly

People who are socialist and use private schools do want that for everyone ffs

Ah like Diane Abbott you mean. Selective schooling is "indefensible" but she sent her own son to a private selective school with fees (currently) in the region of £20K a year.

Way out of reach of most people.

I don't think it's merely affluent socialists that are called champagne socialists, it's just the hypocritical ones

Strongly agree with this

I don't think it's merely affluent socialists that are called champagne socialists

By definition you cannot be socialist and 'affluent'. Affluent implies you are in possession of way more than you 'need'. Hence, you should give it up to those who are more deprived, no longer remaining 'affluent' in the process.

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

Take out 'proletarian leanings' and you've described every Tory I've ever heard speak.

Socialist spend other people’s money. So, essentially that champagne has been paid for by the taxpayer. The Tory voter, usually private sector workers are those that work to build an economy that collects tax revenues for the public sector to spend on things society benefits from…and pays for the champagne too.

@mustlovegin

I don't think it's merely affluent socialists that are called champagne socialists

By definition you cannot be socialist and 'affluent'. Affluent implies you are in possession of way more than you 'need'. Hence, you should give it up to those who are more deprived, no longer remaining 'affluent' in the process.

I think that's a bit simplistic. Socialism doesn't literally mean you are expected to give away all your non-essential income to the next poor person you see.

It's a theory which advocates that the means of production and distribution should be owned by "the people", as opposed to just being in the hands of the owners of capital.

In theory this should mean that everyone's income and assets roughly even out. In practice everyone knows it doesn't work like that. Socialists tend to espouse giving to poorer people and they generally support redistributive policies but you can't say that having money automatically disqualifies you from being a socialist.

A lot of socialists throughout history have come from very affluent backgrounds. Look at Karl Marx, the granddaddy of socialists, just for starters.

I think a lot of the reason why the term "Champagne Socialist" was coined in the first place was because it was striking that there were a lot of wealthy people who advocated for socialism.

At the time socialism was born it was quite difficult for someone from poverty to have any real influence over political theory because poor people were often illiterate and often couldn't vote. So its hardly surprising that as a political movement socialism was driven by an educated and therefore relatively affluent class. I think one of the greatest contradictions of socialism is that its often a political choice of fairly wealthy people and I think that's one reason why it has struggled to take off in Britain. But that doesn't mean that wealthy people cannot be socialists.

I wonder if Gary Neville uses any tax avoidance schemes? Legal, but not very socialist...

I don't know how he votes but I'd say someone like moneysavingexpert's Martin Lewis is a good example of someone who is wealthy but is genuinely concerned about helping those less fortunate - and is willing to spend his own money doing it.

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/martin-lewis-gives-100000-money-22747513

[quote Tealightsandd]I wonder if Gary Neville uses any tax avoidance schemes? Legal, but not very socialist...

I don't know how he votes but I'd say someone like moneysavingexpert's Martin Lewis is a good example of someone who is wealthy but is genuinely concerned about helping those less fortunate - and is willing to spend his own money doing it.

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/martin-lewis-gives-100000-money-22747513[/quote]
I think G Neville is the exact demographic that the Tory's will eventually try to rebrand themselves as and target.

The classic "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" type capitalist.

He was quick enough to rail against lockdown measures when it hurt his hospitality empire.
I'm a huge fan of his btw, but he's clearly not immune from she criticism.
Ultimately I don't think that's a silver bullet to show him as a hypocrite and discount his opinions. He's part of society and he's operating within a system that he didn't design.

Wrt the champagne socialist Russel Brand summed up his experience (before he went completely off his axis) that when he was poor and criticizing the rich they said he was jealous and when he was successful and criticizing them they called him a hypocrite.

well- the example of a champagne socialist I can immediately thought of is my DS1's godmother who told us that our values were wrong and we were tory shills because we put our SEN, autistic and cognitively challenged DS into a private school. Then sold her house to buy another in a better catchment area for a better state school. Quite frankly I consider that we were more fucking honest about it.

She also attacked us because when my mother died I bought a small cottage which I let out- when she herself is a fucking landlord- also through an inheritance. It truly defies common fucking sense.

It's the smugness. The idea that you are a more moral person and better than others because you are so far up your own arse you cannot even see your own hypocrisy.

It's not about criticising the wealthy. It's about criticizing the ones who are hypocrites.

[quote Tealightsandd]I wonder if Gary Neville uses any tax avoidance schemes? Legal, but not very socialist...

I don't know how he votes but I'd say someone like moneysavingexpert's Martin Lewis is a good example of someone who is wealthy but is genuinely concerned about helping those less fortunate - and is willing to spend his own money doing it.

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/martin-lewis-gives-100000-money-22747513[/quote]
Hmmm I mean he makes money from his money saving tips- he isn't doing it for nothing or just to be nice, and he could have helped people without broadcasting it. Not saying he doesn't care or that it isn't admirable, but similarly he benefits from caring about poor people (if that makes sense), and has built a lucrative career around it.

well- the example of a champagne socialist I can immediately thought of is my DS1's godmother who told us that our values were wrong and we were tory shills because we put our SEN, autistic and cognitively challenged DS into a private school. Then sold her house to buy another in a better catchment area for a better state school. Quite frankly I consider that we were more fucking honest about it.

This is exactly what I consider core champagne socialist behaviour. Self-interested self-benefiting behaviour which is passed off under a socialist fig leaf while allowing you to have a go at people who try to improve their lives in a more obviously visible way.

I grew up surrounded by wealthy people who had moved within the catchment area of one of the UK's best comprehensives and then loudly congratulated themselves for being socialists while simultaneously describing people who went to private schools as "Tories".

@thepeopleversuswork

well- the example of a champagne socialist I can immediately thought of is my DS1's godmother who told us that our values were wrong and we were tory shills because we put our SEN, autistic and cognitively challenged DS into a private school. Then sold her house to buy another in a better catchment area for a better state school. Quite frankly I consider that we were more fucking honest about it.

This is exactly what I consider core champagne socialist behaviour. Self-interested self-benefiting behaviour which is passed off under a socialist fig leaf while allowing you to have a go at people who try to improve their lives in a more obviously visible way.

I grew up surrounded by wealthy people who had moved within the catchment area of one of the UK's best comprehensives and then loudly congratulated themselves for being socialists while simultaneously describing people who went to private schools as "Tories".

Thank you for saying that. The situation with our former friend was really really hurtful and to be told we were morally bankrupt because of the above is still something that 6 years later really upsets me.

@2KidsAndNotCounting

Trust me, I get it. I was mercilessly teased as a teenager because I was at a private school by peers who were at the good comprehensive, told my parents were Tories and capitalists etc. I discovered later most of their parents were far wealthier than mine. To this day I can smell that sort of self-justification a mile off.

I have no problem with people having money and spending that money as they see fit. I do object to people with a lot of money and a lot of social capital dictating to people with less of both how they should vote/educate their kids/pay tax/live their lives, when they know they will never face the sorts of dilemmas poorer people will have.

There is nothing wrong with being affluent or successful AND to be on the side of working class. But the case with those types is, that they're not. Forcing luxury beliefs on others and patting themselves on the back for "progress". (think electric cars for example)