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!?

No, I don't have a spare room - we are comfortable as we don't live beyond our income! We have a house that fits us - smaller than we could have afforded if we'd stretched ourselves with a big mortgage, but a small mortgage seemed a better choice to us. We're not wealthy, we drive a 9 year old car in order to have a nice holiday once a year.

I volunteer around 6 hours a week (and yes I work full time and have children), I donate to 4 small charities on direct debit - about 20% of our income after mortgage / essential bills (ie, council tax, electricity, gas, insurance).

Neither my husband or I are high earners, but as I say, due to choices we have made, we are financially comfortable.

@SnackSizeRaisin But the families who don't have money have no choice but to send their children to the bad school. Sending your child to private school is still buying them an advantage over poorer children.
Most under performing schools are that way because they have a large intake of children from deprived backgrounds and all the associated problems that come with that. Sending a child to private school is essentially paying to not have to mix with the riff raff. No one would publicly admit it, and they can dress it up how they like...smaller classes, extra curriculars, yadda yadda, but when you drill right down to it, not having to mix with the working and underclasses is what it comes down to.
That's also why people people pay a premium to live in nice middle class areas when they could get the same house for much less in a working class area.

@Deliaskis

Well..... when I've heard the term, it hasn't been used to describe just socialists who are affluent, but those where there is an element of blindness to the reality of other people's circumstances, e.g. loudly decrying anybody who chooses private education for their children, but failing to acknowledge that the state system works a lot better for people who live in affluent areas with access to excellent schools and children smart and resilient enough to cope with what might get thrown at them.

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

I think the above is a spot on. I live in a part of North London that is full of such people!! Very nice people often but feeling very smug and superior about their virtuous choices.

@Adhdpita

Don't think you've seen the word used in the right context. Champagne socialists are massive hypocrites and show a complete lack of awareness to their fortunate backgrounds and circumstances.

It's a very old phrase, certainly it was around in the 70s if not before. I've always taken it to refer to people who can afford to have 'socialist ideals' because they'll never be adversely affected by its outcome. It's what is now referred to as 'virtual signalling', look at what a good person I am, a name that always comes to mind is Linekar, don't know why!

Also I don't believe you can be on the side of the poor if you are rich. Unless you want all other rich people to give away their money but retain your own

Nonsense. Many people now living comfortably have come from very humble beginnings - hard manual jobs, low wages, unhealthy hours and crap rented housing on sink estates. They will know exactly what it's like to be poor. You don't forget that in a hurry. Just because things improved in your life doesn't make you a selfish, narrow minded person who values money over people. It's because of their background, many people 'give back' in thanks they have escaped their dim past. Nor do these people suddenly think the Tories represent their views.

How do public servants create wealth? They don’t, they merely make a contribution by law from income tax.

Not directly perhaps. But businesses would struggle to make money without roads, police, telecommunications, an educated workforce and many other things

What’s the deal with valuing “wealth” over everything?

Who says that the wealthy are the right people to have all that money? The only ones saying it are those who already have it or are deluded enough to think they may get some of it.

I would value a nurse over a billionaire like Jeff Bezos for example.

@TheToddlerLife I agree with everything you say and I would ban private education if it was up to me. I can't see any situation where I would choose it for my children (even if we could afford it which we can't!) However we are where we are. My children have white privilege. If I had a black male teenager in parts of London I don't know whether I'd feel the same.

@lggly For me it would depend on the individual nurse, I've worked for the council, for British Rail, for schools, people close to me have been nurses and police officers and I now work in private sector. I have seen lazy, work avoiding civil servants and also CEOs working every minute of every day while being hugely supportive employers and vice versa. The sector you work in doesn't immediately imbue you with some sort of set of ethics or a 'value'.

Nonsense. Many people now living comfortably have come from very humble beginnings - hard manual jobs, low wages, unhealthy hours and crap rented housing on sink estates. They will know exactly what it's like to be poor. You don't forget that in a hurry. Just because things improved in your life doesn't make you a selfish, narrow minded person who values money over people. It's because of their background, many people 'give back' in thanks they have escaped their dim past. Nor do these people suddenly think the Tories represent their views.

That wasn't what I said though. Better off people can definitely still hold socialist principles and care about others. But if they had to pick a side they'd pick others like them. Which is why the tories keep getting in. They make it all about sides and can people into thinking the super rich are on the side of the poor.

[quote Realityisreal]@lggly For me it would depend on the individual nurse, I've worked for the council, for British Rail, for schools, people close to me have been nurses and police officers and I now work in private sector. I have seen lazy, work avoiding civil servants and also CEOs working every minute of every day while being hugely supportive employers and vice versa. The sector you work in doesn't immediately imbue you with some sort of set of ethics or a 'value'.[/quote]
Of course it matters what sector. Why would you let a few bad apples drive your thinking?

Are billionaires inherently better because they have more money in their pocket?

I would suggest absolutely not.

@lggly if, as you obviously feel, every civil servant is more worthy, why then, at a time of great upheaval and poverty for large parts of this country do they insist on pay rises knowing that that will mean increases in taxes when the private sector have had few of any pay rises?
Are the senior managers in hospitals, the police and councils etc all really working altrustically or are they all racing for the top for their own pension portfolio?
I have known excellent civil servants, some who are altruistic, but they equal, they don't outnumber the altruistic private sector workers I've known.
They're all just human.

Are billionaires inherently better because they have more money in their pocket?

No. They have more chance to demonstrate their true values than most people though. If they pay all the tax they owe and pay their employees fairly and vote for labour and avoid lobbying fir their own interests, I don't begrudge them their billions. However I doubt anyone would end up a billionaire without exploiting other people.

[quote Realityisreal]@lggly if, as you obviously feel, every civil servant is more worthy, why then, at a time of great upheaval and poverty for large parts of this country do they insist on pay rises knowing that that will mean increases in taxes when the private sector have had few of any pay rises?
Are the senior managers in hospitals, the police and councils etc all really working altrustically or are they all racing for the top for their own pension portfolio?
I have known excellent civil servants, some who are altruistic, but they equal, they don't outnumber the altruistic private sector workers I've known.
They're all just human.[/quote]
What have civil servants got to do with it?

Where did I say civil servants were worth more

@SnackSizeRaisin

Are billionaires inherently better because they have more money in their pocket?

No. They have more chance to demonstrate their true values than most people though. If they pay all the tax they owe and pay their employees fairly and vote for labour and avoid lobbying fir their own interests, I don't begrudge them their billions. However I doubt anyone would end up a billionaire without exploiting other people.

Having billionaires means less for everyone else because there is no infinite supply of money or wealth.

They’ve had a chance to hoard a lot of wealth. It doesn’t make them more valuable. Unless you think value is only the amount of cash in your pocket.

@lggly My apologies, my error, please read public sector worker for civil servants.

If you would happily pay more to support society, why don’t you? What is holding you back?

Personally, I happily donate to a charity of my choice. I'm not sure I want to donate more to the government on top of taxes I already pay.

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

So to side with working class you must stay poor? Never to aspire to a better career, not to achieve any success in what you do? Let alone buy yourself anything nice like champagne. Bizarre.

@5128gap

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.

Except that their brand of socialism is never to their disadvantage. They shout out about how disgraceful private or grammar schools are, yet use their money and influence to make sure that their child gets into a top state school. Hoiking the ladder up behind them, as it were.

Like all lazy terms it means whatever people want it to mean. Ask them to explain though and they struggle and reveal only their sourness and lack of ambition.

I have nice things and live in a nice place and am not going to apologise for that. Life could be even nicer if I had made different choices, worked harder or the chips had fallen differently. I worry about my pension and switch from despair and rage at this government but on the whole I am content and try not to think about the bad things I can do little or nothing about.

I want other people to have the opportunity to have the things I have and even more - my political views don't prohibit or punish people for amassing wealth. All I ask is that they contribute to society by paying fair taxes to assist others and obeying laws like the rest of us are expected to.

In a way it's selfish of me. The more people who build comfortable and happy lives by having the benefits of free education, health care, minimum wage, subsidised housing, legal aid etc the more comfortable and safe my own life will be.

There will be people to deliver my children, vaccinate them, teach them, operate on me when I am seriously ill, wipe my bum when I'm old, drive buses, clean the streets, keep law and order, put out fires in my burning house, defend me if I should ever fall foul of the law by having a naughty work gathering in my back garden during lockdown. You get the the picture: I consider that I get more out of it than if I had to pay for all those things by myself.

The other thing I get out of it is Society. On the whole if you give people the chance of a reasonably comfortable life they will live quietly and peaceably. They may also go on to achieve wonders that would be wasted if their parents couldn't afford to send them to Eton or even a kitchen table where when the food was cleared away they could study.

I am realistic and realise that despite all these benefits some people will waste them or transgress in worse ways. Mostly the people who do that are stupid, poor and antisocial but you don't have to be poor to be antisocial as we are increasingly seeing. The jury is out on stupid. Anyway, I accept that bargain because I am rational and generous of heart and all else is dealt with because I pay taxes to support the police, courts and prisons.

Before we had "champagne socialists" after Labour's 1997 landslide we had the "politics of envy" put about by Margaret Thatcher's government and which still lingers. That was to explain why some people were "haves" and most were "have nots".

I don't envy anyone but I see plenty of it in political opponents and no remedies except for "work harder".

I don't subscribe to the view that all Tories are bastards. My nature is more charitable than that. But some people don't half make it hard for me to continue thinking good thoughts.

@limitedperiodonly None of what you've mentioned is socialism though. The Uk has all of those things and it's never been socialist in the true sense of the word. It's a capitalist country that has implemented some social welfare policies. Just look at countries that have actually been socialist. Every one of them has turned into a dictatorship, because humans are inherently motivated by self interest and no one would willingly give up their privileges and comforts for the benefit of strangers...which is what socialism demands, if wealth is to be distributed equally. It's easy to be charitable when you're not actually making any great sacrifice or being inconvenienced.
That's why I find many left wing types so disingenuous.
But yeah, I do actually agree with you how free healthcare/education benefits society.

@TheToddlerLife this thread is about the term "Champagne Socialist", what it means and whether it is a bad thing to be called that. I think it's not.

I am not a socialist or a disingenuous left wing type but I do like champagne along with other things I believe make a civilised and joyous society.

How do public servants create wealth? They don’t, they merely make a contribution by law from income tax.

We all help to create wealth every time we buy something, whatever sector we work in. The money I've paid into my workplace pension is (presumably) invested in companies that make a profit and thus is creating wealth.

And the doctors and nurses who make us better when we're ill, the teachers who educated us, the people who work in the public services that keep society all contribute, albeit indirectly, to creating wealth.

@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.

Of course it is or they wouldn’t vote for tax raising governments. Not that it matters any more, all those people who voted Tory because they didn’t want to pay more tax have had the rug pulled now.

Of course it is or they wouldn’t vote for tax raising governments

Most champagne socialists don't realise that what they preach will mean higher taxes (or they naively believe that those taxes will not apply to them)