Talk:Champagne socialist

	This Language related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Okay

Okay, so can someone bring me up to speed on what's so bad about champagne socialists? Should only the proletariat be concerned with the fate of proletarians or something? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's like a strawman's ball or something. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well no-one's forcing them to be rich are they? Why don't they just give away their wealth to the poor, like Vanessa Redgrave? I may find her politics repulsive but at least she sticks to her guns. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I don't think actual communist revolutionary leaders really fit the definition of "champagne socialist".--SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about wealth redistribution, give your own fucking money to the poor. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, because one guy giving money to the poor will solve all of capitalism's issues, won't it? Also, socialism isn't all about wealth redistribution, ya know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So you'll just vote in favour of laws stealing other people's property and giving it to the poor will you. How sadistic. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends? Personally, I don't really care if rich people own a lot of stuff. As long as there is a collectively administrated system that can counterbalance the dominance of purely profit-oriented enterprises in the marketplace so as to ensure basic necessities (and preferably a tidbit more than that) for everyone and maybe open up economic opportunities for those less well off I'm fine with it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And as long as said system isn't subverted into a de facto plutocracy, of course. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the article is saying, it just says that it is a derogatory term uses for rich socialists, and wealth redistribution is an important part of socialism Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm replying to the guy who wrote the reverted version and they're saying why they think being a "champagne socialist" is such a bad thing. Try to get a better grasp of the context, Bubba. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

all i know is taht there is a massive edit war going on here. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 19:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we have different definitions of Champagne Socialism. To me, it's the person who rails about poverty and capitalism while getting filthy rich and dominating the system. E.g., the members of Rage Against the Machine, who made a fortune through capitalism while whining about it, but not spending a single penny on fixing the system. or Bono, who whines about the rich not paying their fair share of taxes, but the minute Ireland removes the "artist" exemption from income taxes, changes nationalities. You can't say "well, you weren't poor so you have no right to criticize capitalism" any more than you can say "you aren't a woman so you have no right to support feminism". CorruptUser (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote in the earlier version, I guess that Tony Benn was probably the most archetypical example, but Russell Brand might be a better caricature (the guy is rich and effin' clueless). The part of the criticism that's more than just snarling is the criticism of a sort of ivory tower unrealism among some privileged socialists.

But I agree that most of the time this term is used, it's probably either just a snarl word or not even wrong (especially when applied to U.S. Democrats who aren't socialists by any stretch of the imagination outside of the Fox News demographic). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that this was Conservapedia. Is no criticism of your political opinions allowed? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this page CAN work but there's a misunderstanding of the term. There's really no reason to be upset with someone who gets rich in a capitalist system but then rages against it. With that logic nobody who got wealthy under any sort of system has a right to complain about it. The founding fathers should not have whined about British aristocracy because most of them were made wealthy growing up under the same system. King Juan of Spain had no right to change Spain into a democracy because he had done well (and had more power) under the fascist system. Many of the people who shifted Britain into a democracy were made wealthy from the feudal system, yet I don't see people calling them hypocrites. Someone CAN support a cause that requires them to sacrifice something or goes against a system they've done well in. I think this term is for people who aren't actually willing to make the sacrifice when it comes down to it. ClothCoat (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that types such as Bono or Brand reflects the laissez faire attitude of champagne socialists far better than some of the earlier examples mentioned, especially considering how badly Bono's "save the world"-attitudes clashes with his tax dodging. The earlier examples of Mao, Stalin or Castro were, however, problematic at best and simply wrong at worst. A champagne socialist is not someone who lives a lavish lifestyle after having made their way from a peasant background to dictator of a country (a sort of communist version of the rags to riches narrative). The whole idea of champagne socialism is the disconnect between any real experience of the hardships one complains about, while living a lavish lifestyle and being the kind of socialist who mainly gripes about the evils of capitalism at cocktail parties and in the gossip columns, rather than actually trying to change things, and especially if one exploits the seedier sides of capitalism, such as tax dodging, while doing so. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

But Bono, Bob Geldof, Russell Brand, etc. are from working class backgrounds. If they fit the term Champagne socialist at all, it's a poor fit. I mostly remember this term in relation to Tony Blair & his government: affluent people from posh backgrounds who self-identify as socialists, but were actually shifting the labour party away from its socialist roots. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Weasel has a point. I guess that this would put Brand/Bono/Geldof et al in the hypocrite/clueless category rather than unambiguous champagne socialists. I still think that Tony Benn might fit the bill, though, while I can't help but pointing out that using socialist in anything but quotation marks when speaking of Blairite New Labour types is stretching the definition of socialism to, if not beyond, the breaking point. Vaguely left-tinged neoliberals would seem a more ideologically accurate description, and how many of them actually self-identified as socialists anyway? ScepticWombat (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

CP

Maybe add also that Conservapedia considers Obama to be one of these? Then again, maybe it goes without saying... Synthetix (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)