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 problem isn't the presence of champagne socialists, it's the absence of beer socialists.

In the media, politics, everywhere. All proclaiming their socialist roots while speaking mockney and pretending to actually care about poverty reduction and equitable treatment.

Just like they pretend to care about women, disabled people, immigrants. Never had a female leader though. The Tories have managed that. More than once.

@Ionlydomassiveones

Yes I work with the dickheads. Full of angst about the plight of various disadvantaged groups but they would actually be horrified and disgusted if their offspring had to go to school with working class children. They socialise and hire only people like them (white, privileged, well spoken) and live in wealthy, leafy bubbles where the effects of ordinary life don’t affect them. Then they don’t understand why people vote differently to them but they’re so fucking arrogant that it’s clearly other people who are thick and don’t have a grasp of the issues!

This exactly. I have friends who say how awful it is that some people might be against unlimited low-skill immigration, when it's not their (professional) jobs that are being threatened (and indeed they get to benefit from having a cheaper cleaner, nanny, builder, etc.), not their children in a class of 30 where the majority speak English as a second language (because their children are in a private school), not them who are on a year-long NHS waiting list (because they have private healthcare), and so on.

Agree I’d associate it with being a hypocrite and out of touch.

I wouldn’t call myself a hypocrite but I am a living example of someone personally financially comfortable and yet a socialist in many ways.

@MrsTerryPratchett

The problem isn't the presence of champagne socialists, it's the absence of beer socialists.

In the media, politics, everywhere. All proclaiming their socialist roots while speaking mockney and pretending to actually care about poverty reduction and equitable treatment.

Just like they pretend to care about women, disabled people, immigrants. Never had a female leader though. The Tories have managed that. More than once.

I totally agree with you on the "beer socialists" point.

But I would never make the mistake of equating socialism with feminism. You'd think logically they would go hand in hand but in fact the Labour party is certainly less supportive of women's rights now and has been for most of its history. It's historically been mainly a working mans rights party.

I don't particularly hold Thatcher or May up as shining examples of feminism in action but, whatever you think of the Tories, they have at least allowed them to happen.

The term to me can be linked to the term 'virtue signalling' As in the true socialist would understand the impact of a 'champagne' (or luxury) lifestyle whereas a champagne socialist still partakes in activities that enable inequality.

Likewise someone who is virtuous does good deeds for good reasons where as a virtue signaller makes it look as if they are doing good deeds to solicit praise, much like the champagne socialist.

But I would never make the mistake of equating socialism with feminism.

I'd agree with I would never make the mistake of equating socialism in practice with feminism. But I think you can't have true socialism without women's rights. But Labour isn't currently socialist. Or feminist for that matter. Right on is the best I'd say. Which is a shame because they had my vote for decades.

@Frazzled2207

Agree I’d associate it with being a hypocrite and out of touch.

I wouldn’t call myself a hypocrite but I am a living example of someone personally financially comfortable and yet a socialist in many ways.

Hi! I don’t knit you so I’m not going to say anything with the aim of insulting you.

My trouble with socialists are that they want a society to be equal and fair, but life isn’t as easy at that. Those with affluence or who are a little wealthy that practise socialism often are in it for themselves. There’s often an element of greed or a attitude to make those who are more capitalist inferior (usually out of greed to impose higher taxes for self-gain). There’s a difference between a well paid public servant who works 9-5 and a well paid business owner who pays the taxes in which benefits the former. When wealth is on the back of tax payers, is the easier route to success as tax is law and require no work. It’s hypocritical to judge those who work hard, as let’s face it, running a business is hard and rewards are well deserved.

@CountryGirl17
I agree with quite a lot of what you say. I don’t however recognise myself in that description.

I do on the whole think it’s probably easier to claim to be a socialist when looking from a position of relative privilege. Doesn’t make it wrong though.

So, if you’re a socialist, what should you do exactly when living in a capitalist society?

Giving your money away won’t change things and make it socialist….

Also what is this nonsense about thinking that business is somehow better? Capitalism ultimately is about exploiting other people for excess personal financial gain. The likes of Jeff Bezos are the extreme end of that. But that’s where capitalism takes you.

Not a crime. Just bloody annoying. And the idea that only socialists care about other people is both false and gratuitously insulting

My trouble with socialists are that they want a society to be equal and fair, but life isn’t as easy at that.

It doesn't necessarily have to be equal or fair - but everyone should have enough. The essentials - plus a bit extra for at least some treats, because there's a difference between living and existing and because health is holistic (with mental well-being playing an important role).

This can be achieved whilst still having different levels of wealth within a population.

Tax isn't meant to be about 'punishment'. It's about ensuring we live in a civilised society, where we ensure that everyone including the more disadvantaged and vulnerable is ok.

Tbh though sometimes socialist ideals and self interest coincide. Enough desperate destitute people in a society and it's a potential threat. The welfare state, NHS, and council housing weren't brought in for altruistic reasons alone.

But re champagne socialism, it's the hypocrisy that's the issue.

@toconclude

Not a crime. Just bloody annoying. And the idea that only socialists care about other people is both false and gratuitously insulting

Haven’t seen much evidence of it from the likes of the Conservatives. My experience is that it’s easy to say things like “oh people should just work hard”, but that’s easier said than done.

@Tealightsandd

But re champagne socialism, it's the hypocrisy that's the issue.

But what exactly is the hypocrisy?

Take the Conservatives. They don’t live on the minimum wage - despite claiming it’s enough to live on. They don’t give up their family inheritance, despite claiming you just need to work hard to get anywhere. Biggest hypocrites going.

I was thinking about this because of a related thread the other day.
Our family’s financial circumstances changed dramatically recently because of a bereavement and inheritance. As someone who’s leftwing I might be called a hypocrite for not giving most of the money away rather than keeping it for my own kids’ future. If I did, I could, say, transform the lives of one poor family… but I haven’t.
I would however vote for everyone in the same position as us (and the very wealthy) to pay much higher inheritance tax, land tax, capital gains tax etc. Because then the benefits would be much bigger - potentially a well functioning NHS, investing upfront to support families rather than the state having to pick up the pieces later at 100x the cost, not having loads of rough sleepers on the street in winter, proper support for disabled people etc etc. So I’d vote for that because the rewards in terms of the sort of society I want to live in would be much greater than the personal financial cost.
This may put me in the champagne socialist category.

It's possible to respect and/or like someone whilst holding different political opinions. Also, integrity, principles, and honesty aren't necessarily a left/right issue.

I admire both Churchill and Attlee.

With inheritance tax, the fairest way is to tax on the wealth and income of the recipient.

Iggly
I think some of the previous posters have given good examples of the hypocrisy.

Slamming people who send their children private but paying over the odds to move to the catchment area of a highly rated state school - pricing out poorer families. Or doing a Blair. Send them to a state school but pay for private tuition.

Also tax avoidance schemes, and the likes of the Lib Dem NIMBYs holding a sign saying "refugees welcome"....but then opposing housing developments in their leafy areas.

I see champagne socialists as people who are quick to judge people and find them lacking, not worthy, not caring etc. but they don't realise their own privileged position isn't shared by everyone.
So telling people to by organic not understanding that one pack of organic chicken could cost an entire weekly food budget for some people.
Not understanding, as proven by posters on this thread, that by sending their children to a private or selective school they remove those often (not always) higher achieving children from the state schools system, less State schools are built because there is 'no demand', the trickle down is then when a school is deemed 'good' house prices rise and the families of those without money are eventually priced out of the areas they grew up in. The champagne socialist would bleat 'they don't have to move, house prices make no difference if you don't sell', not understanding that many people are renting and can't afford the constant rent rises, if this is pointed out then they will then rant about evil landlords when the real reason is their own schooling choices.
I'm not a socialist and don't pass any judgement on anyone's schooling choices but I was brought up on a council estate on the edge of a middle class area and saw this in action.
When the champagne socialists I know talk about us all sharing the wealth and being equal they mean equal at their own, very comfortable level they don't mean they want to share their wealth and we all settle at several levels below their current levels of comfort.

I liken champagne socialists to what I call ‘performance socialists.’ An example would be a group of people we know in Primrose Hill who take every opportunity to wax lyrical about the fact that their their DC “just go to the local primary.” They seem to feel this makes them ‘one of the people,’ and rather edgy, but they omit to mention that the school is rammed with celebrities.

Another example would be people we know who have been highly influential in the highest ranks of Labour, yet at home, they employ live-in nannies on less than minimum wage and who have had to leave behind their own children in developing countries!

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

So the public sector workers are the bottom of the heap in your analysis - the very ones that keep us safe daily and we depended on more than ever during the lockdown. The ones that couldn't work from home and stay safe in the pandemic - the nurses, paramedics, hospital staff, teachers, police officers, prison officers. I think they work hard enough (though not paid enough) to buy and drink their own champagne and pay their taxes too.

So the public sector workers are the bottom of the heap in your analysis - the very ones that keep us safe daily and we depended on more than ever during the lockdown. The ones that couldn't work from home and stay safe in the pandemic - the nurses, paramedics, hospital staff, teachers, police officers, prison officers. I think they work hard enough (though not paid enough) to buy and drink their own champagne and pay their taxes too.

The problem with "public sector" is not the nurses, teachers, or firefighters. It is the bureaucrats, who do hell knows what and receive very generous pay from the taxpayers.

@StoneofDestiny

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

So the public sector workers are the bottom of the heap in your analysis - the very ones that keep us safe daily and we depended on more than ever during the lockdown. The ones that couldn't work from home and stay safe in the pandemic - the nurses, paramedics, hospital staff, teachers, police officers, prison officers. I think they work hard enough (though not paid enough) to buy and drink their own champagne and pay their taxes too.

This is the problem with the narrative. It’s not a race to the bottom. At no point did I say the public sector is at the bottom of the run. Though, it’s rather typical to mention those worker’s you’ve mentioned. Trouble with that is that you’re not talking about those in middle to upper management of the civil service that are paid well, 9-5 and demand through policy making more taxation to fund their budgets. So, they expect the private sector to work harder, suffer higher taxes to fund budgets that are unsustainable, where working more efficiently is a solution to needing more money. This won’t happen due to institutionalisation. However, it’s subjective to say those workers you’ve mentioned are underpaid, as farmers work harder and more stressful hours and many are poor…they provide us with food and society cares less.

There is nothing wrong with being affluent or successful AND to be on the side of working class

How can one be on a side that is not your side?

Anyone who believes this narrative is beyond gullible TBH