Champagne Socialists

[BC_chick]

I don't mean to be confrontational, I just want to understand why there is such stigma against people who are rich but who believe at the same time that the wealthy have a greater social responsibility than the poor.

Champagne communist, okay, that I understand would be pretty contradictory. But I honestly don't get the contradiction with rich socialists.

I'd go as far as saying that if someone is rich and they still believe there should be higher tax brackets for the rich - and that corporations should not be allowed to run amok as they please - that makes them even more genuine in their beliefs, no?

And again, I'm not here to say anyone is 'wrong', I'm just interested in hearing what the basis is for the flip-side of the argument. I'm here with an open-mind and I want to learn from the naysayers.

[kimmy]

There's a really old concept called "noblesse oblige". If you were the lord of the manor, you had responsibilities. If invaders were ransacking the countryside, you had to shelter your serfs inside your keep. If famine struck, you had to feed the serfs from your stores.

So, champagne socialism has actually been around for a very long time.

-k

[WIP]

There's a really old concept called "noblesse oblige". If you were the lord of the manor, you had responsibilities. If invaders were ransacking the countryside, you had to shelter your serfs inside your keep. If famine struck, you had to feed the serfs from your stores.

So, champagne socialism has actually been around for a very long time.

-k

That might answer part of the question; but if the rich we are talking about are the billionaires, like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet - there are alterior motives to their beneficence. Soros has bestowed a lot of money on the Democratic Party in the U.S. and created the most important liberal think tank - Center For American Progress; but he uses his purchased influence to have a hand on the wheel, so that the Democrats fit the moderate vision he has of what would create electable candidates.

Bill Gates has a relatively more modest profile in politics, and uses the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as his tool to leave a stamp on the world through the promotion of what he calls "philanthrocapitalism," through supporting micro-loans programs, green business initiatives etc. that make up a significant amount of the annual Foundation grants. Warren Buffet is closely tied with the Foundation through his 10 billion dollar grant.

Warren Buffet has also made the news with his open condemnation of the trend to reducing investment and high income tax rates -- noting recently, that his secretary had to pay a higher rate of tax than he does.

I'm not saying that what these three billionaires are doing is a bad thing...for the most part, they're trying to do good work. The point is that they certainly see personal and financial rewards from their charitable efforts, and they may be just slightly more rational than the libertarian billionaires, who want more money regardless of the consequences! These three may be among the few super-rich who have enough sense to realize that the gutting of the middle class, while the richest 1% double and triple their wealth, may eventually have negative repercussions on them, just like some of the kings and nobles of old, who ended up with mobs wielding clubs and pitchforks at their gates.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I believe it goes something like this.

"How dare they make me look bad for not sharing! I've made my entire wealth by paying workers less than they are worth, I deserve it all." - Champagne Fascist

Champagne communists realise that their wealth was attained by the hard working people and that they have a responsibility to help shape a better future.

Champagne fascists ignore the fact that their wealth is generated by paying people less than they are worth to generate profit. They see the working people as suckers who are meant to prop up their lifestyle and hate being called out on it.

I personally applaud those wealthy individuals to try to make a positive difference by sharing their wealth responsibly.

[KeyStone]

I don't mean to be confrontational, I just want to understand why there is such stigma against people who are rich but who believe at the same time that the wealthy have a greater social responsibility than the poor.

Champagne communist, okay, that I understand would be pretty contradictory. But I honestly don't get the contradiction with rich socialists.

I'd go as far as saying that if someone is rich and they still believe there should be higher tax brackets for the rich - and that corporations should not be allowed to run amok as they please - that makes them even more genuine in their beliefs, no?

And again, I'm not here to say anyone is 'wrong', I'm just interested in hearing what the basis is for the flip-side of the argument. I'm here with an open-mind and I want to learn from the naysayers.

Well, the logic goes a little something like this.

Champagne socialists are wealthy, and they advocate for helping the less fortunate.

Since they are live a luxurious lifestyle, they can't really care about the poor because otherwise they would give up everything that they own to help them. Therefore, they are hypocrites.

It's a technique used to blur the lines. They want to make us all the same. So, the billionaire glutton who never gives a dime to anyone is exactly the same as the millionaire who gives twenty percent of his wealthy to charities because neither give all that they could to the less fortunate.

Obviously, the goal of the 'champagne socialists' is to have everyone shoulder the burden a little, as opposed to only the few that care enough to shoulder the burden disproportionately. Just because someone does not want to live the life of a pauper, does not mean that they aren't willing to make significant sacrifices for compassion.

But the greedy don't like to acknowledge that, and instead like to paint everyone short of perfection with the same brush, thereby allowing them to live their lives of guilt-free hedonism, under the illusion that they are as just and compassionate as everyone else.

[kimmy]

Champagne Communist couldn't possibly have wealth, or champagne of his own.

"Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."

-Andrew Carnegie

Carnegie favored inheritance taxes so that the wealthy would be encouraged to disperse their fortunes to the public good before their death, and said "I'd sooner leave my son a curse than a dollar." Bill Gates' vow to leave his offspring modest (in comparison to his overall fortune, at least) inheritances sounds like a similar philosophy.

-k

[Machjo]

We also have to make a distinction between authoritarian socialist and liberal socialist. For instance, let's say we compared a policy that raised income taxes but also allowed charitable contributions to be 100% tax exempt at a 1:1 ratio, vs. another that raises taxes but gives no voice in how that money is to be spent. So even among socialists there could be divergent views.

[BC_chick]

Since they are live a luxurious lifestyle, they can't really care about the poor because otherwise they would give up everything that they own to help them. Therefore, they are hypocrites.

That black and white eh? Either you give away everything you have, or you can't possibly care for the poor? That's what I'm getting from you?

[Scotty]

I don't mean to be confrontational, I just want to understand why there is such stigma against people who are rich but who believe at the same time that the wealthy have a greater social responsibility than the poor.

Well, first, I think that sort of thing has limits. I don't believe I necessarily have any greater responsibility to the poor than anyone else in society. And I'd resent someone telling me I do.

My feeling about the term is more akin to people who are privileged, have always been privileged, have never known want, or need, or fear, or danger trying to tell 'ordinary' people how to live their lives while being completely in the dark about the realities of that life. Remember Paul Martin telling Canadians they just had to tighten their belts? Easy for him to say! What sacrifice did Martin make? He who reflagged his ships and established corporate headquarters in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes?

The term evokes images of well-meaning middle aged people in their gucci loafers and two hundred dollar hairstyles driving their BMWs to the Sally Anne to donate old clothes - and get a tax receipt - then bragging about their generosity. Or, for that matter, people like Martin saying we should pay higher taxes while doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes at all. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, liberal types waxing prosaically about the wonderful cultural delights of mass immigration and the great new restaurants they can now visit - while living in areas immigrants can't afford, and sending their kids to private schools.

[fellowtraveller]

There's a really old concept called "noblesse oblige". If you were the lord of the manor, you had responsibilities. If invaders were ransacking the countryside, you had to shelter your serfs inside your keep. If famine struck, you had to feed the serfs from your stores.

So, champagne socialism has actually been around for a very long time.

-k

Ah, no. The reason the lord of the manor protected his serfs is that they were the tools that made him wealthy. A better parralel would be that he protected them from harm in the way he brought iron tools in from the rain so they would not rust.

[Remiel]

Ah, no. The reason the lord of the manor protected his serfs is that they were the tools that made him wealthy. A better parralel would be that he protected them from harm in the way he brought iron tools in from the rain so they would not rust.

While there is a lot of truth in that, I think that one could perhaps say that since the demise of feudalism, noblesse oblige has morphed into something with a stronger hint of responsibility than profit.

[Shady]

I believe the more current term is Limosine Liberal.

[Pliny]

I don't mean to be confrontational, I just want to understand why there is such stigma against people who are rich but who believe at the same time that the wealthy have a greater social responsibility than the poor.

I believe the stigma comes from the fact that their greater social responsibility usually involves criticisms of the way other people lack a greater social repsonsiblity, what they should be doing, how much government should be doing, and patronizingly patting the poor on the head.

[Bonam]

Usually, people who are rich and flaunt their willingness/history of helping the society/the poor do it as a way of guilt-tripping others into doing the same. No one likes being guilt-tripped. Someone who is rich and can afford a lavish lifestyle may not care whether the government takes some more millions in taxes, and so may well argue for higher taxes to be seen in a better light by his equally "progressive" buddies/acquaintances, while such changes in taxes may well strongly impact the middle/upper middle class.

I have nothing against people who want to give away their money because they believe in charity. Good for them. It's when they try to make it into a publicity stunt, a PR maneuver, or a guilt trip for others that are well to do, that I find it unsavory.

[August1991]

I don't mean to be confrontational, I just want to understand why there is such stigma against people who are rich but who believe at the same time that the wealthy have a greater social responsibility than the poor.

I agree.

Bob Rae, Stephen Lewis and Justin Trudeau are sons of rich/ambitious parents. Is that their fault? This idea of champagne socialism is misplaced. If rich children feel bad for their wealth, then their personal issues are different.

For example, George W. Bush was the son of a rich guy.

Edited May 18, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

I have nothing against people who want to give away their money because they believe in charity. Good for them. It's when they try to make it into a publicity stunt, a PR maneuver, or a guilt trip for others that are well to do, that I find it unsavory.

Stephen Lewis, no slouch when it comes to humanitarian assistance and advocacy for the poor, siad he can "barely stand to look at" Bob Geldof, for basically the reason you state.

But I see no reason to lump wealthy altruists all together with those who have a pretence to being one of the good guys. No more than I would blame principled conservatives for the jerkoffs in their ranks.

[Shady]

You people are all missing the true meaning of Limoisine Liberals or Champagne Socialists. Usually, it's these type of people that tell the rest of us how we should live, while at the same time, living a completely different way. See Robert F Kennedy and Al Gore. They're two perfect examples.

[Pliny]

I have nothing against people who want to give away their money because they believe in charity. Good for them. It's when they try to make it into a publicity stunt, a PR maneuver, or a guilt trip for others that are well to do, that I find it unsavory.

I believe the term that applies is "do-gooder". It's like people who feel they have to put some food out for wild animals that happen to appear in their campgrounds.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I believe the more current term is Limosine Liberal.

That's an American political term that does not apply to Canada.

You are just using it to slander the Liberal party.

Edited May 19, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Shady]

That's an American political term that does not apply to Canada.

You are just using it to slander the Liberal party.

Paranoid much?

[Remiel]

Given how the new Cabinet was escorted to the ceremony yesterday, I think it would be more appropriate to speak of " Limousine Conservatives " .

[bloodyminded]

Given how the new Cabinet was escorted to the ceremony yesterday, I think it would be more appropriate to speak of " Limousine Conservatives " .

Many years ago, I attended a campus meeting of the Young Conservatives.

Ever since then, I've been puzzled by denunciations of the "wine and cheese set" (which were sipped and nibbled in abundance), or of the "liberal elites" trope.

[Smallc]

Given how the new Cabinet was escorted to the ceremony yesterday, I think it would be more appropriate to speak of " Limousine Conservatives " .

Well, if we want to count Ford Escapes as limousines, sure, I guess.

[Remiel]

Well, if we want to count Ford Escapes as limousines, sure, I guess.

Was it now? That was not how it was first reported to me. Which second hand information to trust now?

[Smallc]

Was it now? That was not how it was first reported to me. Which second hand information to trust now?

There was a line of Ford Escapes outside of Rideau Hall, ready to pick up the new ministers. I must admit that I don't know how they got there.