By Evi Tsakali,
My recent article on privilege (if you missed it, you can click here) was pretty much a manifesto of the relativity of the concept, and how it is subject to change according to the life that we choose to live and the people that we interact with, but apparently it was not adequate, because I received my first hate comment (after 3,5 years of writing for this column, I now know that my writing is quite influential I guess; and I also know that now you will definitely click on the link)! I am a woman of dialogue though, and having considered the words of the concerned reader (which I will not reproduce here because a serious article cannot contain what unfortunately my DMs could – and because I am a jurist and I know better than that) as well as the fact that my father would call me “Evi, the socialist”, even when I was too young to know what it meant (when a parent knows their child…) I could not help, but think: was I being a champagne socialist in my article? And this is what, in turn, I will call you to reflect upon, dear reader: are you a champagne socialist and what does it entail? Let’s see…
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a champagne socialist is “a rich person who says he or she supports a fair society, in which everyone has equal rights and the rich help the poor, but who may not behave in this way”. A pejorative term, which -and let me as such rephrase the definition to put it into practice- is used to denigrate that friend of yours, who is joining all the protests during their studies abroad flaunting the essentials; namely, among equivalent alternatives, a (venti) Matcha Tea Latte (the fact that I have one right next to me, while writing these words is purely coincidental). To take the imagery one step further, if they had a formal event the same night, you could easily picture them opting for AOC’s infamous “Tax the rich” dress. However, the aforementioned does not by any means constitute an archetype, and drawing a line is rather subjective and blurry.
I remember a guy in high school telling me “but there is no other choice here Evi” trying to convince me that it would be absurd for someone to vote a political party other than the one predominant in our school, which is also composed of a lot of our alumni; he would add later on that, worst case scenario, I could (thanks for the permission) vote for the first alternative, a bit more to the left. I could not fathom that attending a specific school obliged you to abide to a certain set of beliefs (so I disregarded the opinion as such), but on the other hand I did “catch myself” feeling disturbed from time to time with some classmates of ours that were drowning in privilege, while boasting about their communist, sometimes anarchist views (they were, allow me the French expression “croyants mais pas pratiquants”) thinking that revolution was hanging out at the hipster neighborhoods of Athens, reading some Bakunin they didn’t necessarily understand and, most important, hate our school and everything about it (ignoring that, unlike others, they had something to denounce). Likewise, I am not comfortable with people confronting politicians for sending their children to private schools (because, besides that being the go-to argument, when one doesn’t have a substantial political argument, it is a parenting-related choice above all, as well as something we would probably do in their position too), but at the same time I couldn’t help, but “cringe” with France’s Minister of Education and Sport Amélie Oudéa-Castéra wondering how come the children at the public middle school she visited were wearing trainers (I don’t know what type of shoes she was expecting). On balance, exactly as with privilege, we may see a champagne socialist where others don’t, and it is highly likely that we may be seen as champagne socialists by someone despite ourselves… So you may wonder, why are we making it such a deal?
What’s wrong with champagne socialists?
The main issue, when it comes to champagne socialists is, simply put, that it is difficult to establish an apparent belief, when you “don’t practice what you preach”. Nevertheless, tracing the expectations that this “practice” implies can often be unrealistic, if -for example- we are expecting champagne socialists to give up their fortune or property for the sake of wealth redistribution; as you do (in general it is one of the easiest things to preach on how somebody should manage their money, or how you would manage money that you don’t have).
A way to mitigate the valid, problem is to perceive the equality that champagne socialists preach in favor of in a broader sense and link it to human wellbeing (money doesn’t make it hypocritical to believe in). Socialism in any case champions equal access to resources and opportunities; envisioning a world where everyone has a chance to thrive and there is equality in the pursuit of happiness should not be conditioned to someone’s bank statements.
But can we help it though?
Of course, it would be restrictive to make a generalization out of wealthy leftists, to consider them representative of all, however, it would be an omission (an irony even) to refuse them a place in the left spectrum. Ivory tower academics (among them numerous intellectuals of the Left), especially in the past, were almost a fortiori from a well-off background; and it makes sense, if you want to stand by your stance that you acquire a certain level of cultural capital only if you come from a certain background. Even Friedrich Engels, one of the fathers of modern socialism, came from a factory owning family and lived the life that resulted from it (any similarities with the above criteria are definitely coincidental).
Knowing a certain financial prosperity, while being leftist is often tricky to manage, and may constantly require justification, but apparently the real question that we need to contemplate on is whether being a leftist and wealthy makes one so ethically indefensible, what does that (now allow me the Greek phrase and I am already regretting the quote) «ηθικό πλεονέκτημα της Αριστεράς» consist of and to what extent does it actually benefit an already fragmented spectrum.
It is better to have allies than passive wallflowers sitting on a pedestal in a world where humans are cynically believed to be inherently selfish…
References
- Champagne socialist. dictionary.cambridge.org. Available here
-
So what’s the problem with champagne socialism?. theguardian.com. Available here
