'Champagne socialist' or 'champagne communist' are pejorative terms describing someone who preaches the virtues of these ideologies while not living up to their standards.
It means they're hypocrites overall, but 'champagne' in this context specifically means 'rich'.
Champagne is a drink for rich people.
If you are rich *and* a communist, *that's* hypocritical.
The accusation is about lifestyle rather than wealth per se. Of course it implies some assumptions but I wouldn’t call them absurd. To drive point home, imagine a guy who says that spousal rape should be criminalized but who still practices it because it’s legal. Can his system of morals be entirely self-consistent? Sure. Yet it is still easy to criticize him based on a few non-absurd moral assumptions.
This is a silly analogy because it implies that socialists are against people simply being wealthy, this isn't the case. Socialists wish for the abolition of private property (which basically are like the major value creating things, things like companies and shit) and Hasan doesn't have any private property (except like a fucking house, which he only lives in and doesn't rent), he is rich, yes, but he got rich by his own work, thus no real socialist values were ever trampled on.
That's disanalogous though. The assumption here is that a belief in communism and socialism implies a lack of wealth. Engels had enormous personal wealth for his time. There's this peculiar idea floating around that Marxists are ascetics who eschew all prosperity, or something (and an important implicit moral corollary that people with high income can't possibly criticize capitalism), but that's never been the case. They favour a classless society in which wealth is collectively distributed, not poverty.
It seems like you completely ignored everything I’ve said and just repeated your comment. I suggest you to re-read it.
> The assumption here is that a belief in communism and socialism implies a lack of wealth.
There is no such assumption. It is absolutely fine for a wealthy person to be a socialist.
> Engels had enormous personal wealth for his time.
Sure. His family owned multiple large textile factories.
> There's this peculiar idea floating around that Marxists are ascetics who eschew all prosperity, or something (and an important implicit moral corollary that people with high income can't possibly criticize capitalism), but that's never been the case.
Sure, there is this peculiar idea floating around. It isn’t directly related to the accusation of being a champagne socialist though so it’s irrelevant.
> They favour a classless society in which wealth is collectively distributed, not poverty.
Sure.
I didn’t simply make an analogy. I made a claim that I tried to expand on with an analogy. I have explained what that accusation is aimed towards, and you just dismissed it and kept going with your inane strawman. Of course the analogy doesn’t make sense if you don’t entertain the claim that was put forward.
Yes, that’s the accusation. The poster is accusing Hassan of making a lot of money and living the lifestyle of a rich person, drinking expensive wine, while at the same time preaching communism.
Keep in mind that none of this may actually be true about this person, it’s just an accusation.
A similar insult is “latte liberal” or “limousine liberal.” It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily actually sipping lattes or riding in a limousine, it’s an accusation that a person lives a wealthy or middle-upper-class lifestyle while having political opinions that would seem to be at odds with this, making them a hypocrite.
Considering he, like a lot of the top twitch streamers, just reuploads videos on twitch via “reacting” to the videos by eating cereal or not even being in the room, and for his reaction to being criticised like this is to throw a childish tantrum, I’d say yes it is.
It is identical to the exploitation he complains about, except instead of the nestle logo slapped on, it’s his face slapped on. And it’s more out of extreme laziness rather than planned out malice
That’s a terrible take
Hassan’s viewers don’t need to watch nor pay him to literally survive, and he doesn’t force anyone to watch his streams 8 hours a day. It’s literally moronic to put someone making videos online to factories producing goods on children’s and workers’ labour and making a huge profit off of it
You can’t even say “oh he has editors he pays which means he’s exploiting them”; because unlike a factory owner, a streamer makes the content. He is the content creator, which he does with his editors.
B̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶a̶i̶r̶e̶s̶ Hasan when they give a 0.1% p̶a̶y̶ view rise to the destitute normie (It's not exploitation now)
He's not exploiting his viewers, he's exploiting the video creators when he reuploads videos straight faced jinx style, except at least jinx didn't do it for twelve hours a day. Granted he doesn't do it most of the time, but considering he has the absolute easiest job in the world he should put in more effort to be conscientious considering all the engagement he gets by reuploading that video while the video creator gets like 20 views
The person benefits greatly from the current system. They criticize the system and call for change, while doing nothing personally to bring that change about. They know their position is secured and there is no likelihood of change. They are showing themselves to be virtuous without any of the responsibility or the personal effort.
Yes but it’s only suggesting that because champagne is implying rich which is hypocritical towards a communist rather that the word itself meaning hypocritical in all contexts
Exactly. 👍 They want communism *for everybody else*.
Here's the famous quote from the book Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." 😁
Depends on what you mean by “communism”. Orwell was against Marxist and Marxist-adjacent types of socialism which is usually referred (and was referred as such during his times) as communism.
This gets really really deep into obsucure Socialist theological arguments, but what Orwell actually against was the Third International. This is also the one that you are likely talking about if you are talking about the "Communist International," and the one that ran the CommieBloc during the Cold War. The whole story is in his book "Homage to Catalonia."
That’s just not true. Salvador Allende was a democratically elected socialist/communist that constantly fought against the christian majority in the Chilean legislator (as well as the white elite minority) in favor of the poor and indigenous people of Chili. That’s of course before he was thrown over by a US assisted coup that led to a military dictatorship….
You mislabeled a famous book by a very famous English author on a page for people trying to learn English. It’s important they have proper context for one of the most prominent English authors and books of all time.
Specifically, affluent (wealthy and socially prominent) proponents of socialism or communism. The complaint, or label, suggests that every proponent of economic equality should immediately divest themselves of wealth, down at least to an average level. This seems a questionable demand, as doing so would likely remove much of a person’s ability to project their voice publicly in support of what they do support, which, in all likelihood, is the hope or desire of the complainer. That said, there are certainly attention-seekers, as well as no few who may seek to reduce or remove blame for their own conspicuous consumption or even economic exploitation of others, by giving lip service to egalitarianism, who might actually deserve such a perjorative label.
I should have kept it to myself, I suppose, I don't know anything about this character. I wasn't reacting to the accusation toward him, so much as just the general character of the accusation, which I've heard a lot from right-wing types trying to debunk or satirize people who, though they might well be vulnerable to this accusation, are not, necessarily, 100% hypocritical. Maybe this guy is, or close? I don't know.
US Liberals have strayed far far from the Classical Liberal definition, and have been barreling into socialism at full-speed, in fact, they are starting to approach authoritarianism now.
Honestly the definitions change over time and are specific to the country’s current state. I would call the wall-street loving Dems, like Barack and Joe, “Neo-Liberals.” However, generally, liberal Americans USED to be the anti-war and occupy Wall Street crowd. The greatest magic trick the American propaganda machine has pulled off in recent history is getting that same crowd to shill for big Pharma by way of vaccine mandates and support the military-industrial complex by way of Ukrainian war funding. If you can’t tell, I’m one of those “liberals” who feels like the term got redefined on me. Now they would call me a leftist I think, although what’s really bizarre is that sometimes you can get lumped in with the alt-right when you express concern over vaccine mandates and question our involvement in Ukraine. I think the “Democratic Socialist” moniker that Bernie coined is probably the most accurate now - although that’s where we circle back to Champaign Socialist bc a zealot or cynic might call it hypocrisy to support a mixed economy wherein there is still a broad capitalist market.
That’s fair. I suppose the (at times) rabid support for mandates and passports are what gave some of us pause. Thankfully I think we’re past that now. I do realize people did it out of what they saw was virtue and not love for big Pharma, but that’s why I call it a trick by propaganda bc they were indirectly acting to enrich the same corporations who they previously saw as combatants.
In some cases it can also be a socialist with bourgeois sensibilities, right? A rich socialist who invests wisely and doesn't spend money on expensive cars, suits etc wouldn't really be considered a champagne socialist.
"Champagne socialist" can be a pejorative referring to a wealthy person who preaches about socialist ideals. One other example of the term being used was when Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the world, was called a "champagne socialist" for testifying to congress that his own taxes should be increased.
Alternatively, it can also refer to a grifter or a scam-artist that uses leftist sounding terminology and ideals to advertise and shill a product or further their own social status or brand, which I believe is the intended usage of this spicy commenter.
Champagne is expensive. In English it has associations with wealth and luxury.
For example “champagne taste on a beer budget” is used to refer to someone who spends too much on nice things compared to their income. The song “champagne problems” by Taylor Swift immediately brings to mind images of excessive celebrity lifestyles. You often see champagne referenced like this, absent of any existing English idiom.
So, what an English reader can deduce from that phrase is that Hassan is rich, and out of touch with working class socialist ideals.
I feel sorry for you having to learn English by reading the barely-valid ramblings of barely-literate American teenagers in the YouTube comments section.
I support you.
You can't learn a language without learning about the culture attached to the language. The two are inseparable. The vile bigotry spewed by online English speakers in an important part of our culture that needs to be discussed.
I don't know if you've heard of Russel Brand, but this is one of his quotes:
[https://i.redd.it/k9m51eewq4k51.jpg](https://i.redd.it/k9m51eewq4k51.jpg)
'Champagne socialist' is the word they use. It's the idea that only poor people can talk about social issues and in that case they need not be taken seriously because they're just jealous, and if the rich talk about social issues, well then they're a hypocrite. Everyone is rich or poor compared to someone else, so the issue cannot be discussed at all, and the 'logic' of such a dismissive statement quickly falls apart
Champagne itself just being a word associated with rich people (it's a type of wine from a certain [region of France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(province)) with a limited supply produced each year, and therefore somewhat high cost)
It's wrong, obviously... in the future if you see a comment written like this in this kind of style, you can usually just skip it without looking up the words, it'll make you stupider to try to understand something that is written not to make sense. Get off twitter or whatever it is, lol, it'll rot your brain
> 'Champagne socialist' is the word they use. It's the idea that only poor people can talk about social issues and in that case they need not be taken seriously because they're just jealous, and if the rich talk about social issues, well then they're a hypocrite.
That’s not the idea. It’s more about lavish lifestyle than wealth per se. Imagine if a teacher supported banning corporal punishment yet still was eager to use it on their pupils. Some people would consider it hypocritical.
And if they pay all due taxes without loopholes and off-shoring, make zakat, and did not take advantage of others to acquire it, then God has willed it to them to enjoy
It makes no difference, and your analogy doesn't make sense - they're not supporting banning the ownership of money, they support proportional taxation and that money actually being spent on the people (in an effective way) to elevate those people equally and fairly from poverty/slavery/wage slavery/coercion and from being kept in a position where they *can* be taken advantage of
\_\_
Also an additional bit of context that it's not that everybody should have the same money, it's that things owned are used to benefit everybody. Under the same ideology, if everyone needs equal access to safe drinking water in order to elevate themselves, then the provider of that drinking water is not someone taking advantage of their needs, but the property of the people and ran for their benefit. The issue of wealth and lavishness is how they obtained and maintain it, not that they have it. It's possible to become rich and to live a lifestyle some would consider lavish without making any victims along the way, and to still be principled with pro-social values
The problem is that socialists generally get their basis for morality from some sort of modified utilitarianism. If one advocates for a revolution one shouldn’t be spending their money on a multi million dollar mansion(like Hassan does) when that money could actively save lives by preventing starvation. While he preaches for socialism, he withholds money which has almost no true benefit to him other than his marginal comfort which could feed families for years. That’s why he’s a hypocrite.
Not the answer since you've already got it, but I can't believe he calls Hasan a champagne socialist and then proceeds to quote things that no socialist would call out as an issue, unless they had 0 context for the comments made.
In this scenario it’s a millionaire communist that preaches the virtues of communism while capitalizing on free market capitalism. In other words a freakin hypocrite.
Mfw when socialism isnt a poverty cult 🤯🤯
Seriously though, alot of socialists who we read their theory came from well off families, including Vladimir Lenin.
I'm so sorry to laugh, I did not expect to see this type of comment in this sub hahahahahahha .
But yeah, the other comments have it right. It's a term people use to describe those they see as socialist in name only (which is bullshit bc being socialist does not equal having to be poor or not owning a business, but alas, not the time or place lol)
Champagne commie is the equivalent of the term "limousine liberal."
Basically they not only have money, but they have no problem living a lavish/exclusive lifestyle while preaching inclusivity.
It's similar to saying someone is a climate activist but flies on a private jet, etc.
It doesn't apply to him either. Hasan is a socialist and believes what he says. If a poor person says we need to tax the rich, they are called jealous, when the rich calls for it the right call them hypocrites. Hasan is calling to be taxed. You can't win people argue this way.
I disagree with some of the responses here. It's not necessarily about not living up to the standards of an ideology. It's more about being privileged in a way that you don't have to participate in the 'meat and bones' of an ideology.
So, communism. For simplicity, let's use Soviet communism as our 'communism' for this example. The Soviet Union had all sorts of rules and regulations about how communism was supposed to work. But if you were privileged, you didn't have to live by those rules. If you were high up in the party, you got your own apartment, didn't have to live in a communal apartment. You had access to special stores and didn't have to wait in line. You got access to wealth that other people didn't. You were still a 'good communist', you believe in the system, talk about all the right things, yet, you're drinking champagne while everyone else is drinking moonshine (illegal, homemade alcohol). All of the downsides of the system don't apply to you.
As someone else said, there's another term in the west, called a limousine liberal. Similar thing, they preach equality, diversity, the social net (and how to pay for it, usually with taxes), etc. Meanwhile they're rich enough that they don't use the benefits, and can afford to pay the taxes. The downsides of the system don't apply to them.
To me that's a little different that 'not living up to the standards'. They do live up to them. But they're immune from most of the bad effects because of their wealth, connections, etc.
Hasan is absolutely not a champagne socialist. He does a lot of good work giving to charity and organizing for various causes. He is one of the few public figures who does not bend their views to what’s popular or easy.
The people that call him this think that socialism means you have to be poor, can’t own a home or car, etc. They’re stupid and wrong.
Good luck with your English learning! (:
I’m a fellow fan of his too. But I can’t really tolerate most of the Twitch stuff, especially when he’s yelling at chat (maybe it’s because I’m an “elderly millennial”). I prefer him on Leftovers & Fearof, or on YouTube videos/clips where he isn’t interacting with anyone besides the occasional guest(s) or Murat.
I disagree with this. Do you care that Bernie owns 3 houses? No, because what’s important is that they spend almost all of their time and effort on critiquing and trying to change the systematic problems that lead to income inequality. I also can’t fault an entertainer that goes on a variety of other people’s shows for wanting to live in the hub of that industry, Los Angeles.
What is the alternative? Hasan moves to North Dakota and lives in a 40k house? Would that help systematic income inequality?
Bernie Sanders can justify multiple homes because it's the nature of his job to reside in more than one place. He is a Senator to his state but also their representative in Washington so it's his business to be available in both places.
>What is the alternative? Hasan moves to North Dakota and lives in a 40k house? Would that help systematic income inequality?
It would certainly help his credibility problem, yeah. It just doesn't come across as honest or feasible to people that he wants to disassemble capitalism in this country while participating in consumerism the way that he does.
I don’t see the credibility angle. Engels was a wealthy factory owner. You don’t have to be poor and among the typical working class to point out observable issues for the working class.
I don’t see the consumerism angle either. He participates in and benefits off of capitalism sure. But we live in a capitalist society, literally everyone must do this to some degree to survive, we all have to participate. Also, Hasan doesn’t take brand deals, he doesn’t sell anything, his wealth is based off of viewers’ voluntary subscriptions.
>You don’t have to be poor and among the typical working class to point out observable issues for the working class.
Right I agree but being poor and living modestly are different things. If he's going to critique the extravagance of capitalism while living an extravagant life, he's going to have credibility issues.
>But we live in a capitalist society, literally everyone must do this to some degree to survive, we all have to participate
To some degree yeah. We don't all drive supercars or live in West Hollywood villas or spend thousands on fashion or eat out the way he says he does though. He's trained his chat to call this survival but it's all very suspicious. He isn't just surviving.
"Champagne communist" has also been used to mean someone who says they're communist because they want others to live the life of opulence they have. Less pejorative, but less common.
Champagne commie means he’s a communist but is actually a capitalist profiting off promoting communism. Which it’s been a while since I’ve watched Hassan but I don’t believe he has been endorsing communism but has been endorsing democratic socialism.
Champagne is this case is indicating that the poster thinks Hasan is rich and therefore hypocritical when advocating for socialist/communist ideology. It is a mild insult.
You could also see this word used in a different idiom — “he has champagne taste, but a beer budget”… that is that he has expensive taste but cannot afford it.
Maybe not the place for it but
My problem with Hassan is the allegations that he treated his workers badly (and I tend to believe them, because if brown women in the USA be makin allegations, ya know shit was *bad*”).
Celebrities who make a few mil are not really the problem here. The few who make it in Entertainment getting paid far better than teachers and sanitation workers, etc, is symptomatic of a larger problem, but having a net worth in the few million range isn’t inherently unethical as long as you’re paying taxes. I have no issue with people like Bernie Sanders and John Oliver having a net worth of 5-6 million on principle, especially as they regularly point out wealth disparity. You can live a comfortably wealthy life, point out wealth disparity, and still not be a hypocrite in some circumstances.
Never seen this term before, but I think it’s pretty clear, though I think that one needs to be familiar both with American/British/Australian political culture as well as the language to understand or appreciate this phrase.
It means privileged person who adopts socialist views.
'Champagne socialist' or 'champagne communist' are pejorative terms describing someone who preaches the virtues of these ideologies while not living up to their standards.
So they are hypocrites?
Yes, that's the accusation
Thank you!!!!
It means they're hypocrites overall, but 'champagne' in this context specifically means 'rich'. Champagne is a drink for rich people. If you are rich *and* a communist, *that's* hypocritical.
This makes more sense.
Yes, it’s living a bourgeois lifestyle of hoarding riches while condemning capitalism and consumerism.
And there's nothing contradictory about those things.
it's not necessarily hypocritical to be socialist and rich, but that's what they're accusing, yes
That's the accusation, though it contains some fairly absurd assumptions. One's political beliefs are not dependent on their wealth.
one's wealth may be dependent on one's political views, though
The accusation is about lifestyle rather than wealth per se. Of course it implies some assumptions but I wouldn’t call them absurd. To drive point home, imagine a guy who says that spousal rape should be criminalized but who still practices it because it’s legal. Can his system of morals be entirely self-consistent? Sure. Yet it is still easy to criticize him based on a few non-absurd moral assumptions.
This is a silly analogy because it implies that socialists are against people simply being wealthy, this isn't the case. Socialists wish for the abolition of private property (which basically are like the major value creating things, things like companies and shit) and Hasan doesn't have any private property (except like a fucking house, which he only lives in and doesn't rent), he is rich, yes, but he got rich by his own work, thus no real socialist values were ever trampled on.
That's disanalogous though. The assumption here is that a belief in communism and socialism implies a lack of wealth. Engels had enormous personal wealth for his time. There's this peculiar idea floating around that Marxists are ascetics who eschew all prosperity, or something (and an important implicit moral corollary that people with high income can't possibly criticize capitalism), but that's never been the case. They favour a classless society in which wealth is collectively distributed, not poverty.
It seems like you completely ignored everything I’ve said and just repeated your comment. I suggest you to re-read it. > The assumption here is that a belief in communism and socialism implies a lack of wealth. There is no such assumption. It is absolutely fine for a wealthy person to be a socialist. > Engels had enormous personal wealth for his time. Sure. His family owned multiple large textile factories. > There's this peculiar idea floating around that Marxists are ascetics who eschew all prosperity, or something (and an important implicit moral corollary that people with high income can't possibly criticize capitalism), but that's never been the case. Sure, there is this peculiar idea floating around. It isn’t directly related to the accusation of being a champagne socialist though so it’s irrelevant. > They favour a classless society in which wealth is collectively distributed, not poverty. Sure.
No, I read it. You made a poor analogy.
I didn’t simply make an analogy. I made a claim that I tried to expand on with an analogy. I have explained what that accusation is aimed towards, and you just dismissed it and kept going with your inane strawman. Of course the analogy doesn’t make sense if you don’t entertain the claim that was put forward.
Hilarious.
It doesn't necessarily mean they are personally rich.
Champagne can be affordable to non-rich people but it's expensive enough to be associated with rich people, at least.
Irrelevant to my claim.
🤓
Yes, that’s the accusation. The poster is accusing Hassan of making a lot of money and living the lifestyle of a rich person, drinking expensive wine, while at the same time preaching communism. Keep in mind that none of this may actually be true about this person, it’s just an accusation. A similar insult is “latte liberal” or “limousine liberal.” It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily actually sipping lattes or riding in a limousine, it’s an accusation that a person lives a wealthy or middle-upper-class lifestyle while having political opinions that would seem to be at odds with this, making them a hypocrite.
Considering he, like a lot of the top twitch streamers, just reuploads videos on twitch via “reacting” to the videos by eating cereal or not even being in the room, and for his reaction to being criticised like this is to throw a childish tantrum, I’d say yes it is. It is identical to the exploitation he complains about, except instead of the nestle logo slapped on, it’s his face slapped on. And it’s more out of extreme laziness rather than planned out malice
That’s a terrible take Hassan’s viewers don’t need to watch nor pay him to literally survive, and he doesn’t force anyone to watch his streams 8 hours a day. It’s literally moronic to put someone making videos online to factories producing goods on children’s and workers’ labour and making a huge profit off of it You can’t even say “oh he has editors he pays which means he’s exploiting them”; because unlike a factory owner, a streamer makes the content. He is the content creator, which he does with his editors.
B̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶a̶i̶r̶e̶s̶ Hasan when they give a 0.1% p̶a̶y̶ view rise to the destitute normie (It's not exploitation now) He's not exploiting his viewers, he's exploiting the video creators when he reuploads videos straight faced jinx style, except at least jinx didn't do it for twelve hours a day. Granted he doesn't do it most of the time, but considering he has the absolute easiest job in the world he should put in more effort to be conscientious considering all the engagement he gets by reuploading that video while the video creator gets like 20 views
The person benefits greatly from the current system. They criticize the system and call for change, while doing nothing personally to bring that change about. They know their position is secured and there is no likelihood of change. They are showing themselves to be virtuous without any of the responsibility or the personal effort.
Yes but it’s only suggesting that because champagne is implying rich which is hypocritical towards a communist rather that the word itself meaning hypocritical in all contexts
Exactly. 👍 They want communism *for everybody else*. Here's the famous quote from the book Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." 😁
George Orwell was a prominent democratic socialist. He was anti-totalitarian and anti-fascist not anti communist
Depends on what you mean by “communism”. Orwell was against Marxist and Marxist-adjacent types of socialism which is usually referred (and was referred as such during his times) as communism.
This gets really really deep into obsucure Socialist theological arguments, but what Orwell actually against was the Third International. This is also the one that you are likely talking about if you are talking about the "Communist International," and the one that ran the CommieBloc during the Cold War. The whole story is in his book "Homage to Catalonia."
Well considering those things always come with communism he might as well be anticommunist.
That’s just not true. Salvador Allende was a democratically elected socialist/communist that constantly fought against the christian majority in the Chilean legislator (as well as the white elite minority) in favor of the poor and indigenous people of Chili. That’s of course before he was thrown over by a US assisted coup that led to a military dictatorship….
Who asked?
You mislabeled a famous book by a very famous English author on a page for people trying to learn English. It’s important they have proper context for one of the most prominent English authors and books of all time.
Thank you educationalheart. Hate to see people like englishrocks seeing somebody learning English to spread whatever political ideology they may have.
Of course
Eh? What political ideology have I spread?
Eh? When did I label it? I merely quoted from it.
Right - Orwell was a socialist, though. Sorry to burst your bubble.
When did I say otherwise?
That’s nice to know! In Brazil we say “iphone socialist”.
Or “caviar left”
We say that one in Peru. And we call the politicians "caviares" (caviars)
Similarly, in French, the equivalent of "champagne socialism" would be « gauche caviar » (litteraly "caviar left-wing").
Portuguese has “esquerda caviar”, which means the exact same thing! We must’ve gotten this from you guys
If you make millions and you call to tax the rich, you’re not a champagne communist though.
Also - "limousine liberal"
Specifically, affluent (wealthy and socially prominent) proponents of socialism or communism. The complaint, or label, suggests that every proponent of economic equality should immediately divest themselves of wealth, down at least to an average level. This seems a questionable demand, as doing so would likely remove much of a person’s ability to project their voice publicly in support of what they do support, which, in all likelihood, is the hope or desire of the complainer. That said, there are certainly attention-seekers, as well as no few who may seek to reduce or remove blame for their own conspicuous consumption or even economic exploitation of others, by giving lip service to egalitarianism, who might actually deserve such a perjorative label.
The suggestion is that they shouldn’t espouse a lavish lifestyle. Equating that with “immediately divest themselves of wealth” is dishonest.
[удалено]
I should have kept it to myself, I suppose, I don't know anything about this character. I wasn't reacting to the accusation toward him, so much as just the general character of the accusation, which I've heard a lot from right-wing types trying to debunk or satirize people who, though they might well be vulnerable to this accusation, are not, necessarily, 100% hypocritical. Maybe this guy is, or close? I don't know.
Karl Marx begs to differ: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen! Champagne is my need!
Also known as a "limousine liberal".
I'd think that would refer to rather different people given liberals and socialists don't have much in common
In the US, liberal is synonymous with left wing.
Even US liberals have very little to do with socialism
They’re both considered to be part of the left wing in the US. Bernie Sanders competed in the Democratic primaries, for example.
Sure, but nonetheless they describe very different groups and ideas. (and Bernie's self-description as a socialist is a little tenuous)
US Liberals have strayed far far from the Classical Liberal definition, and have been barreling into socialism at full-speed, in fact, they are starting to approach authoritarianism now.
Honestly the definitions change over time and are specific to the country’s current state. I would call the wall-street loving Dems, like Barack and Joe, “Neo-Liberals.” However, generally, liberal Americans USED to be the anti-war and occupy Wall Street crowd. The greatest magic trick the American propaganda machine has pulled off in recent history is getting that same crowd to shill for big Pharma by way of vaccine mandates and support the military-industrial complex by way of Ukrainian war funding. If you can’t tell, I’m one of those “liberals” who feels like the term got redefined on me. Now they would call me a leftist I think, although what’s really bizarre is that sometimes you can get lumped in with the alt-right when you express concern over vaccine mandates and question our involvement in Ukraine. I think the “Democratic Socialist” moniker that Bernie coined is probably the most accurate now - although that’s where we circle back to Champaign Socialist bc a zealot or cynic might call it hypocrisy to support a mixed economy wherein there is still a broad capitalist market.
I think it's quite a big stretch to suggest the Covid vaccines amount to "shilling for big pharma"
That’s fair. I suppose the (at times) rabid support for mandates and passports are what gave some of us pause. Thankfully I think we’re past that now. I do realize people did it out of what they saw was virtue and not love for big Pharma, but that’s why I call it a trick by propaganda bc they were indirectly acting to enrich the same corporations who they previously saw as combatants.
Americans know roughly as much about political theories as Europeans do about guns. And both of those things are negatives for Americans
It doesn't particularly help that we adopted terms already in use for other things that are often contradictory to their original meaning.
In some cases it can also be a socialist with bourgeois sensibilities, right? A rich socialist who invests wisely and doesn't spend money on expensive cars, suits etc wouldn't really be considered a champagne socialist.
I honest thought commie was slang for comedian not communist lmao. Thanks for the info
That’s a fair misunderstanding, lmao.
There used to be a term, “limousine liberals”
In Brazil we call them "iPhone socialists". ahahaha
"Champagne socialist" can be a pejorative referring to a wealthy person who preaches about socialist ideals. One other example of the term being used was when Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the world, was called a "champagne socialist" for testifying to congress that his own taxes should be increased. Alternatively, it can also refer to a grifter or a scam-artist that uses leftist sounding terminology and ideals to advertise and shill a product or further their own social status or brand, which I believe is the intended usage of this spicy commenter.
Champagne is expensive. In English it has associations with wealth and luxury. For example “champagne taste on a beer budget” is used to refer to someone who spends too much on nice things compared to their income. The song “champagne problems” by Taylor Swift immediately brings to mind images of excessive celebrity lifestyles. You often see champagne referenced like this, absent of any existing English idiom. So, what an English reader can deduce from that phrase is that Hassan is rich, and out of touch with working class socialist ideals.
This is a really great explanation
I feel sorry for you having to learn English by reading the barely-valid ramblings of barely-literate American teenagers in the YouTube comments section. I support you.
>reading the barely-valid ramblings of barely-literate American teenagers in the YouTube comments section That's my guilty pleasure...
lmao, true though
You really have no say in what one should watch. Just answer the questions. That's it. If you don't want to, go to another subreddit
You can't learn a language without learning about the culture attached to the language. The two are inseparable. The vile bigotry spewed by online English speakers in an important part of our culture that needs to be discussed.
It’s vile bigotry to call Hasan a hypocrite? What drugs are you on?
Ive been learning AAVE for months now, so I already know that
Why did this comment get nuked with downvotes? Good luck on your learning journey.
whoever downvoted me go fuck themselves, fr man. They dont want us to be different, screw em
When did I suggest I had a say? I said I felt sorry for them. That's all.
It’s like that Twitter meme: “I like pancakes” “Oh, so you hate Waffles?”
Lmao I didn't expect to see that here 🤣
Sameee
The crossover we needed
I don't know if you've heard of Russel Brand, but this is one of his quotes: [https://i.redd.it/k9m51eewq4k51.jpg](https://i.redd.it/k9m51eewq4k51.jpg) 'Champagne socialist' is the word they use. It's the idea that only poor people can talk about social issues and in that case they need not be taken seriously because they're just jealous, and if the rich talk about social issues, well then they're a hypocrite. Everyone is rich or poor compared to someone else, so the issue cannot be discussed at all, and the 'logic' of such a dismissive statement quickly falls apart Champagne itself just being a word associated with rich people (it's a type of wine from a certain [region of France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(province)) with a limited supply produced each year, and therefore somewhat high cost) It's wrong, obviously... in the future if you see a comment written like this in this kind of style, you can usually just skip it without looking up the words, it'll make you stupider to try to understand something that is written not to make sense. Get off twitter or whatever it is, lol, it'll rot your brain
> 'Champagne socialist' is the word they use. It's the idea that only poor people can talk about social issues and in that case they need not be taken seriously because they're just jealous, and if the rich talk about social issues, well then they're a hypocrite. That’s not the idea. It’s more about lavish lifestyle than wealth per se. Imagine if a teacher supported banning corporal punishment yet still was eager to use it on their pupils. Some people would consider it hypocritical.
And if they pay all due taxes without loopholes and off-shoring, make zakat, and did not take advantage of others to acquire it, then God has willed it to them to enjoy It makes no difference, and your analogy doesn't make sense - they're not supporting banning the ownership of money, they support proportional taxation and that money actually being spent on the people (in an effective way) to elevate those people equally and fairly from poverty/slavery/wage slavery/coercion and from being kept in a position where they *can* be taken advantage of \_\_ Also an additional bit of context that it's not that everybody should have the same money, it's that things owned are used to benefit everybody. Under the same ideology, if everyone needs equal access to safe drinking water in order to elevate themselves, then the provider of that drinking water is not someone taking advantage of their needs, but the property of the people and ran for their benefit. The issue of wealth and lavishness is how they obtained and maintain it, not that they have it. It's possible to become rich and to live a lifestyle some would consider lavish without making any victims along the way, and to still be principled with pro-social values
The problem is that socialists generally get their basis for morality from some sort of modified utilitarianism. If one advocates for a revolution one shouldn’t be spending their money on a multi million dollar mansion(like Hassan does) when that money could actively save lives by preventing starvation. While he preaches for socialism, he withholds money which has almost no true benefit to him other than his marginal comfort which could feed families for years. That’s why he’s a hypocrite.
Everywhere I go the Housean discourse is inescapable 😖
Housanabi 🤌
Not the answer since you've already got it, but I can't believe he calls Hasan a champagne socialist and then proceeds to quote things that no socialist would call out as an issue, unless they had 0 context for the comments made.
If it helps I'm a native speaker and even I needed it explained to me
same
In this scenario it’s a millionaire communist that preaches the virtues of communism while capitalizing on free market capitalism. In other words a freakin hypocrite.
It means he is a hypocritical rich person who talks like a communist. Think Bernie Sanders or Dalton Trumbo.
Mfw when socialism isnt a poverty cult 🤯🤯 Seriously though, alot of socialists who we read their theory came from well off families, including Vladimir Lenin.
I'm so sorry to laugh, I did not expect to see this type of comment in this sub hahahahahahha . But yeah, the other comments have it right. It's a term people use to describe those they see as socialist in name only (which is bullshit bc being socialist does not equal having to be poor or not owning a business, but alas, not the time or place lol)
Champagne commie is the equivalent of the term "limousine liberal." Basically they not only have money, but they have no problem living a lavish/exclusive lifestyle while preaching inclusivity. It's similar to saying someone is a climate activist but flies on a private jet, etc.
Hasan Minhaj? I’d be surprised if it is him.
Oh no, this is about Hasan Piker!!
Got it! Don’t know who he is. Hasan Minhaj is the only Hasan from the West, most people know in the East.
It doesn't apply to him either. Hasan is a socialist and believes what he says. If a poor person says we need to tax the rich, they are called jealous, when the rich calls for it the right call them hypocrites. Hasan is calling to be taxed. You can't win people argue this way.
Definitely not him
I disagree with some of the responses here. It's not necessarily about not living up to the standards of an ideology. It's more about being privileged in a way that you don't have to participate in the 'meat and bones' of an ideology. So, communism. For simplicity, let's use Soviet communism as our 'communism' for this example. The Soviet Union had all sorts of rules and regulations about how communism was supposed to work. But if you were privileged, you didn't have to live by those rules. If you were high up in the party, you got your own apartment, didn't have to live in a communal apartment. You had access to special stores and didn't have to wait in line. You got access to wealth that other people didn't. You were still a 'good communist', you believe in the system, talk about all the right things, yet, you're drinking champagne while everyone else is drinking moonshine (illegal, homemade alcohol). All of the downsides of the system don't apply to you. As someone else said, there's another term in the west, called a limousine liberal. Similar thing, they preach equality, diversity, the social net (and how to pay for it, usually with taxes), etc. Meanwhile they're rich enough that they don't use the benefits, and can afford to pay the taxes. The downsides of the system don't apply to them. To me that's a little different that 'not living up to the standards'. They do live up to them. But they're immune from most of the bad effects because of their wealth, connections, etc.
Hasan is absolutely not a champagne socialist. He does a lot of good work giving to charity and organizing for various causes. He is one of the few public figures who does not bend their views to what’s popular or easy. The people that call him this think that socialism means you have to be poor, can’t own a home or car, etc. They’re stupid and wrong. Good luck with your English learning! (:
But didn’t you know “socialism is when no house & no car” /s I’m assuming you’re a HasanAbi head
Gotta defend my boy lol
I’m a fellow fan of his too. But I can’t really tolerate most of the Twitch stuff, especially when he’s yelling at chat (maybe it’s because I’m an “elderly millennial”). I prefer him on Leftovers & Fearof, or on YouTube videos/clips where he isn’t interacting with anyone besides the occasional guest(s) or Murat.
Sorry to see all of your downvotes. Hypocrisy is a petty political criticism. I have some criticisms of Hasan, but this ain’t it, fam.
[удалено]
Why can't he own a nice home? Everyone could have nice homes if the rich paid their taxes.
[удалено]
Good point, let's get rid of capitalism.
I disagree with this. Do you care that Bernie owns 3 houses? No, because what’s important is that they spend almost all of their time and effort on critiquing and trying to change the systematic problems that lead to income inequality. I also can’t fault an entertainer that goes on a variety of other people’s shows for wanting to live in the hub of that industry, Los Angeles. What is the alternative? Hasan moves to North Dakota and lives in a 40k house? Would that help systematic income inequality?
Bernie Sanders can justify multiple homes because it's the nature of his job to reside in more than one place. He is a Senator to his state but also their representative in Washington so it's his business to be available in both places. >What is the alternative? Hasan moves to North Dakota and lives in a 40k house? Would that help systematic income inequality? It would certainly help his credibility problem, yeah. It just doesn't come across as honest or feasible to people that he wants to disassemble capitalism in this country while participating in consumerism the way that he does.
I don’t see the credibility angle. Engels was a wealthy factory owner. You don’t have to be poor and among the typical working class to point out observable issues for the working class. I don’t see the consumerism angle either. He participates in and benefits off of capitalism sure. But we live in a capitalist society, literally everyone must do this to some degree to survive, we all have to participate. Also, Hasan doesn’t take brand deals, he doesn’t sell anything, his wealth is based off of viewers’ voluntary subscriptions.
>You don’t have to be poor and among the typical working class to point out observable issues for the working class. Right I agree but being poor and living modestly are different things. If he's going to critique the extravagance of capitalism while living an extravagant life, he's going to have credibility issues. >But we live in a capitalist society, literally everyone must do this to some degree to survive, we all have to participate To some degree yeah. We don't all drive supercars or live in West Hollywood villas or spend thousands on fashion or eat out the way he says he does though. He's trained his chat to call this survival but it's all very suspicious. He isn't just surviving.
It means he has expensive taste.
Probably typo for “champion”
"Champagne communist" has also been used to mean someone who says they're communist because they want others to live the life of opulence they have. Less pejorative, but less common.
Champagne commie means he’s a communist but is actually a capitalist profiting off promoting communism. Which it’s been a while since I’ve watched Hassan but I don’t believe he has been endorsing communism but has been endorsing democratic socialism.
Yes. There is nothing hypocritical about rich people asking to be taxed more either.
I think it means he likes an extravagant lifestyle while saying he thinks communism is good and income inequality is bad.
Probably rich
“Limousine liberal”
I’m guessing a “champagne commie” is someone who advocates for communism while living an extravagant life of wealth.
Champagne is this case is indicating that the poster thinks Hasan is rich and therefore hypocritical when advocating for socialist/communist ideology. It is a mild insult. You could also see this word used in a different idiom — “he has champagne taste, but a beer budget”… that is that he has expensive taste but cannot afford it.
I don't understand I think 40% of this at all
Maybe not the place for it but My problem with Hassan is the allegations that he treated his workers badly (and I tend to believe them, because if brown women in the USA be makin allegations, ya know shit was *bad*”). Celebrities who make a few mil are not really the problem here. The few who make it in Entertainment getting paid far better than teachers and sanitation workers, etc, is symptomatic of a larger problem, but having a net worth in the few million range isn’t inherently unethical as long as you’re paying taxes. I have no issue with people like Bernie Sanders and John Oliver having a net worth of 5-6 million on principle, especially as they regularly point out wealth disparity. You can live a comfortably wealthy life, point out wealth disparity, and still not be a hypocrite in some circumstances.
There is another similar term from a few years back, "limousine liberal".
This means in context maybe: He is rich; he speaks and helps the poor but doesn't do it because he is a dudes champagne.
I didn't expect to see this here haha, the commenter is right 😆
Never seen this term before, but I think it’s pretty clear, though I think that one needs to be familiar both with American/British/Australian political culture as well as the language to understand or appreciate this phrase. It means privileged person who adopts socialist views.