top of page

Champagne Socialists: Practice What You Preach!

Updated: Oct 19

How can your beliefs be credible if they're not acted upon?



I found myself in a debate recently with a man who passionately defended his left-wing beliefs. He argued that shared ownership of the means of production would improve quality of life, and that basic human necessities like food should never be denied. He even claimed communism to be a misunderstood ideology that deserves more credit. His arguments could have been interesting — until I noticed the Rolex on his wrist.


What surprised me most weren’t his ideals, but rather his obliviousness to the contradiction between his advocacy for wealth redistribution and the luxury timepiece he displayed — it reminded me of Leonardo DiCaprio, exhorting climate action while also owning a private jet. Such contradictions beg the question: can you really preach without practising?


To clarify, when I refer to 'champagne socialists' in St Andrews, I don't mean a socialist from a privileged background, as most socialists wouldn't label someone a hypocrite solely because of their upbringing. A person born into privilege can choose to leverage their advantages for the greater good: Tony Benn, a political figure from the 1960s, renounced his aristocratic title to serve the Labour Party. 


Rather I mean someone exhibiting a fundamental discrepancy between their beliefs and lifestyle. This is a common phenomenon all over the world, as evident by similar terms like ‘Gauche Caviar’ in France or ‘Rolex Communists’ in Italy. But then one might ask, is everyone attending the privileged University of St Andrews automatically a champagne socialist?


In today's Western world, essentials like higher education and smartphones are more widely accessible and viewed as necessities. As a member of the St Andrews Socialists (SocSoc) defends, "Owning an iPhone doesn't make a socialist hypocritical.” While extreme critiques of every brand aren't always productive, aspiring to avoid unnecessary levels of overconsumption does seem necessary when embracing socialist ideals.


"If someone came to me to defend Marx, and I saw them wearing a Rolex, I would be less annoyed and maybe more confused," a SocSoc member remarked. "It feels unnecessary when you are a student," another added. We wouldn't do it in most places in the world, so why in St Andrews?


Well, I suspect that most people at St Andrews don't feel the need to renounce their luxurious lifestyles to promote socialist ideas. Recent graduate Mauricio observed, "St Andrews is the champagne socialist paradise. It's the perfect place to pose as progressives while also going to Opening Ball. Nobody will call you out. You get the best of both worlds." Academic environments like ours often foster ‘aesthetic socialism’ — a fascination with socialist thinkers like Marx or Sartre. Most of us have read (instances of) their works, but let's not confuse that with true socialist commitment. Unless you believe that reading 25 pages of The Communist Manifesto and blaming capitalism for everything makes you a socialist, you might need to reassess. 


Concerning this misconception, SocSoc's leaders highlighted a troubling fact: "There's an issue today with the conception that socialism is some sort of trend. This sort of happy ideology defending equality that everyone suddenly wants to jump to […] I have never met a happy socialist. There is no reason to be happy on any systemic level if you believe in the stuff that we believe in." While there's growing support for unions, universal healthcare, and higher corporate taxes, these sound more like liberal ideals rather than strictly socialist ones. On the flip side, there's often a lack of collective action, no desire for simpler lives, and an unwillingness to sacrifice luxury for the greater good. Many students defending socialist ideas still aspire to influencer lifestyles, crave the latest gadgets, buy countless cheap items on Temu or Shein, or dream of luxury cars and homes in desirable areas. They're standard liberals adopting leftist rhetoric without embodying it.


If you attend St Andrews, you will doubtlessly encounter students who are pretty standard-fare liberals and claim to have ‘socialist intuitions’, while honestly not wishing to live a socialist's life. Amar, a St Andrews University Conservative and Unionist Association (StAUCA) member, challenges the notion that individuals are helpless within a capitalist system. "[Some socialists here] create the delusion that individuals have no choice other than overconsumption — but they do," he asserts. "People need to be more honest with themselves. It's too easy to fall back into a champagne socialist pattern in a place like St Andrews, the temptation is always there." The prevalence of expensive events like balls and charity fashion shows catered for students clearly illustrates this point.


Members of SocSoc acknowledge this issue but offer a nuanced view: "Most socialists in our community take action, but anyone who postures as a devout socialist yet wants and owns riches without recognising the problem — that's hypocritical," one member admits. "Still, we believe we should be charitable; many people learn at their own pace." Amar agrees that it's acceptable for people to be "uncertain about their beliefs,” especially in a university setting where diverse perspectives abound. "What's less OK is the lack of accountability for the positions you actively decide to take," he emphasises.


Others even argue that socialism is more an ideology than a practice. Adam, a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, notes, "I would focus more on [the Rolex socialist's] political identity rather than his consumption habits. Socialism is more about being anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, about strongly believing in certain ideals. As long as you're loyal to the movement, personal consumption doesn't really matter." Where he draws the line seems to be when "someone claims to have socialist values but then desires to fill — directly or indirectly — the role of the oppressor."


So, is there truly no contradiction in the Rolex anecdote? If overconsumption isn't fundamentally at odds with one's socialist ideas, should we have excused Leonardo DiCaprio for advocating climate action while owning a private jet? I believe not. In 2021, he was called a hypocrite and eventually gave up his jet to gain more credibility. In this case, the point remains and seems very clear: credibility requires consistency. DiCaprio knew that, once held accountable for his contradictory lifestyle, he had to give up his jet or give up his ideals. Similarly, shouldn't we hold ourselves accountable and aspire to the same consistency we expect from others?


This isn't about criticising those who invest in luxury items like expensive watches or supercars; it's about aligning actions with professed beliefs — putting your money where your mouth is. With politics comes sacrifice, integrity, and consistency. This is significantly harder than advocating for common-sense human rights that any reasonable person, left-wing or right-wing, would want to defend.


Ultimately, the contradictions embodied by St Andrews’s 'champagne socialists' serve as a reflection of our generation's struggle to balance ideals with the realities of modern life. We have a responsibility to not only articulate what we stand against but to define what we are fighting for. The true test of our convictions will be in whether we can move beyond performative advocacy, and live in a way that aligns with the values we claim to uphold. After all, if we are truly serious about reshaping the world, we must first reshape our relationship to the privileges we carry within it.


Illustration by Magdalena Yiacoumi

213 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page