Champagne Socialists?

I was once told by somebody who identifies herself as a supporter of the progressive left that giving dictionary definitions when a "progressive" uses a word or phrase wrongly is "something conservatives do."

 

Strange, because not only I have often been corrected and told I am a typical neo - con extremist by supporters of big government, big science, big Pharma, big education and big everything, those who usually 'identify' as progressive, but I have never voted for a Conservative candidate in my life. Unfortunately the people who corrected me were invariably wrong because rather than looking in Webster's or the Oxford English Dictionary they look only in Wiktionary. which at best only gives a part definition.

 

I happen to think dictionary definitions are important. If we humans are to communicate those who share a language must all have the same understanding of what words in that language mean. Thus when one comes across people who style themselves liberals advocating Stalinist policies of authoritarian central government, social engineering and state ownership of all enterprises one is duty bound to try to enlighten that person about political philosophy and particularly the fact that variants on Marxism like socialism, Stalinism and Maoism are the antithesis of Liberalism which is as close as any workable system can get to anarchism.

 

Most of the leading advocates of such "progressive" politics are left wing elitists who operate a double standard, not inflicting on their own privileged social class the privations they would visit upon the masses. There is a name for this political sub culture, Champagne Socialists.

 

Here, because purpose of this post is to annoy lefties a dictionary definition of Champagne Socialists may be of use to Cultural Marxists, New World Order global government supporters and all the academics, public employees, special advisers and other 'tax eaters' (h/t William Cobbett) who enjoy the high life at the expense of Joe the Punter.

 

champagne socialist n. deprecative (orig. and chiefly Brit.) a person who espouses socialist ideals but enjoys a wealthy and luxurious lifestyle.

 

Lefties claim there is no such thing as a champagne socialist even as the guzzle Bollinger and Lanson paid for either directly or indirectly by you and me and eat in the kind of restaurants where a main course costs the equivalent of a weeks earning for a minimum wage worker.

 

One of the UK's leading left wing newspaper’s journalists recently outed herself as exactly that: a bubbly-guzzling hypocrite who, though writing about education for the privileged with a definite collectivist bias and posing for years as a chippy, radical socialist, has actually been sending her daughter to a private school, fancy uniform, straw boater hat, jolly hockey sticks and all. So how does she square that with her demands to abolish private education?

 

Given the views of many of her readers expressed in comment threads where they enthusiastically call for the death penalty for parents who choose private education, anyone who goes to church, and anyone who does not support same sex marriage, 1 million per cent taxes and a totalitarian global government you might expect Janet Murray's article to be a letter of resignation – or, if she was feeling more courageous, a grovelling apology to all the private school parents who she “resented” for “buying privilege through private education”.

 

But it’s neither. Instead, it’s a kind of weaselish justification for being what she terms an “‘accidental’ private school parent”.

 

It was, she whines,just that “the local private school for under thirteens offered 8am-6pm hours and holiday care”. And what she “hadn't appreciated was just how much the nursery was part of the school”.

 

Then, weirdly, it becomes a 'J'accuse' style diatribe, addressed to parents of children at comprehensives:

 

The state sector in education is full of parents buying advantage. They kid themselves that what they are doing is somehow morally superior. The truth is that every person who moves house to get into the catchment area of a better school, or suddenly develops an interest in religion to get their kids into a Church School rather than having to mix with the chavs at the local state school is using private wealth to play the system.

 

Needless to say, even the 'oligarchical collectivists' (see '1984' bu George Orwell,) who are her readers have managed to spot her hypocrisy. One comment read “I don't get it Janet. You justify your own choice by criticising others who do the kind of thing you have done,” says one. Another adds: “the writer is making lots of money and is writing this piece to justify her snobbery.”

 

Elitist Lefties never turn on their own however, their belief in their own moral superiority is such that they see no contradiction in their raging against conservatives doing the very things they are busy doing themselves (Ah, but we are doing it for the right reasons,” they will argue): once Janet’s colleagues have come to terms with her defection to The Dark Side, many of them will stand by her. For, as much maligned Education Secretary Michael Gove pointed out when his education policy had been savaged by an editorial in The Guardian:

 

"…the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years. But then, many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated, at the most exclusive schools" he said. "George Monbiot the Marxist Environmentalist commentator was at Stowe, (according to my friend Colin who was also attented the school, the model for the school in Mervyn Peake's surreal and subversive novel Gormenghast - made into a TV series in 2001, box sets available, Seumas Milne of the leading advocate of a single European superstate run by appointed bureaucrats as a stepping stone to global government was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all, the feminist and 'Yooman Rites' ranter – Laurie Penny (a nanocelebrity according to right wing magazine The Spectator – was educated at Brighton College, an exclusive girls school.

 

I know it's embarrassing for Ms Murray to be caught out in her one rule for me another for the proles* hypocrisy, but at least one  socialist Member Of Parliament will offer her a shoulder to cry on. Yes, little Miss "Everything is about race because I'se black" herself, Diane Abbot, after spending two decades denouncing private education as evil and (white, conservative) parents who choose private education as earthly manifestations of Enochian demons, sent her own son to private school, justifying her choice by saying the state system could not meet his needs.

 

Trouble is, from the illiteracy and innumeracy rates we are seeing and the levels of juvenile delinquency, state schools are not meeting very many pupils needs.


* This of course is the guiding principle of all socialist governments.

NB: this is an old article, updated somewhat, that is worth a rerun because the fragmentation of societies in the developed world is becoming extremely destructive.

 

RELATED POSTS:
Chasing Bubbles

The Aspirational

Comments

John G Added Apr 28, 2017 - 4:54pm
Liberalism which is as close as any workable system can get to target="_blank">anarchism.
Good lord. That is absurd on its face. 
The people you are critiquing are decidedly not progressives. They are liberals.
Thomas Napers Added Apr 29, 2017 - 1:23am
I couldn’t agree more, most progressives/liberals/leftists are nothing more than champagne socialists.  Which is another way of saying they are all hypocrites.  With so much negative things to say about leftists, progressives and socialists why don’t you ever vote for conservative candidates? 
John G Added Apr 29, 2017 - 1:34am
Napers, liberals are NOT leftists. They are pro-capitalist idiots like you.
Shane Laing Added Apr 29, 2017 - 6:10am
At least when Margret Thatcher was PM she told the country when she was going to screw you. The champagne socialists i.e. Blair and Brown hid it. They really didn't give a crap as long as they were all right.  Brown decided that all pensions should be taxed so screwing over the pensioners and what happened when it was found that there was a huge deficit (£2 billion) in the MPs pension pot? Yes you guessed it he took it from the public purse to top it up. Amazingly other pension pots that were in deficit weren't topped up because it would be too expensive 
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 29, 2017 - 10:06am
EXPAT, agree with what you said, excepting I spend quite a lot of time trying to make sure words still matter. Not long ago (before I signed up here) I posted something on a comment from a silicon valley billionaire who said he wants to make the world more visual, so we don't have to rely on language, which he thinks people find confusing.
I remarked that for all his babbling about technology improving human life in every way he was trying to take us back to the Indo European proto - language which was replaced by better options about 8000 years ago.
I had some liberal / progressive telling me going visual would be a great step forward, how much smarter the Chinese and Japanese are that us, having a picture everyone can understand. And she gave as an example a picture of a window with raindrops falling outside to tell someone it is raining.
OUCH! That one landed on her toes like a brick.
Things aren't so simple as my liberal friend imagines. Very briefly, with a link to a better description, Chinese and Japanese characters are not ideograms which use an image to convey meaning (window with raid = 'it is / was raining'), but phonemes, like the proto - language or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, each one representing a sound, either a whole word or syllable. Oriental scribes must learn around 3000 characters while we who use the Roman alphabet manage to convey even complex ideas with just twenty six (plus a few numerals).
So if we get past the standard liberal / progressive conviction that foreign cultures always do it better than us, I think we actually developed the best form of non auditory communication.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 29, 2017 - 10:08am
John G, I know you intend to intimidate us all with your mighty intellect, but to be honest mate the banalities you post are about as intimidating as a loud fart.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 29, 2017 - 10:22am
Thomas, what I said is I have never voted for a Conservative candidate. In the past, if possible I would cast a protest vote for an economically conservative, socially liberal candidate. That option is no longer available as the old Liberal Party (classical liberals, i.e. small government, localism and maximum individual freedom) made the mistake of joining forces with a breakaway group of the Labour Party (big government, state ownership and socially, paternalistic liberalism, a horrible philosophy which infantilises the working and middle classes) and thus became a subset of The Labour Party.
Now I sometimes vote Green, sometimes UKIP, and sometimes for an independent candidate. I even voted a couple of times fron The Natural Law Party, which was sponsored by The Beatles guru, The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, they might have seemed like a bunch of nutters to many people, to me they represented a home for my protest vote.
To me politics is not a binary. 
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 29, 2017 - 10:34am
Shane Laing, Margaret Thatcher made selfishness a virtue. I did well during her government because I was a computer networks expert and became a consultant to the big finance houses before and after deregulation. But my family home was in the north and I saw close up the consequences of her economic policies for core industries like mining and engineering.
My feelings on The UK Conservative Party are I know they are the party of self interest, and because they are open about that I can deal with it without having to like them. I have no time for Labour because they are such effing hypocrites, there's nothing Labour politicians love more than sucking up to people with names like Rothschild, Barclay, Soros, Saud, Bush or Astor.
Thanks for reminding me about Brown's pension raid.
Mircea Negres Added Apr 29, 2017 - 12:55pm
Ian, it's not that different in South Africa. Here we have members of the South African Communist Party who are in the ANC because they made a deal before the 1994 election to get positions in return for SACP not contesting the elections. ANC members call each other "comrade" in parliament where they are paid from R900.000 a year upwards (minimum wage is around R40.000  a year), dress to the nines for the opening of parliament and as a matter of course while millions of ordinary people live in rags, have private health insurance while urging people to stop using private hospitals and use the state ones instead so they can die from malpractice or preventable infections, are driven in expensive SUVs like BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne and escorted by bodyguards while begrudging people who can afford it private security because the police's service is poor, and bemoan the poor state of public schools in townships and the black parents who take their kids out of there as a result- while those same politicians send their own kids to former Model C schools (former majority white schools) and private schools. We call those politicians "Gucci communists".
Mircea Negres Added Apr 29, 2017 - 12:56pm
Nice post, by the way, and welcome to Writer Beat!
Micahel Dolan Added Apr 29, 2017 - 1:23pm
"Culture"
Killing a culture is something to be alarmed about. Destroy a culture and you destroy a nation. There are people and mobs today actively trying to obliterate all vestiges of the common American culture.Let's face it. American progressive liberals no longer have any foreign models for their utopian dreams and ambitions.There is no successful test case for these ideas anywhere. There never has been.
So liberalism-socialism today is re-inventing itself in the United States. What is it about conservatism that so angers the dominant media culture? For the Liberal, America is not a nation but a civil religion-an idea.
Dino Manalis Added Apr 29, 2017 - 1:57pm
All Americans should support Americanism and we ought to strive to assimilate immigrants into our American culture as much as possible!  God Bless America!
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 29, 2017 - 3:07pm
Mircea Negres, thanks for your comment. I have a Facebook friend, Gilly, who is a 'saffer', although she's back in Britain now after some unfortunate experiences at the hands of gangsters. (We were with the same publisher about ten years back but they went broke). Gilly has described S.A. in much the same way as you.
It's unfortunate that what is potentially the most prosperous nation in Africa, and a nation that could with good government become Africa's first global power should be ruined by they hypocrisy of corrupt politicians who gain power and immediately sell out to corporate interests.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 29, 2017 - 3:16pm
Michael Dolan, what is it about conservatism that angers liberals and socialists? A very good question, every day I hear and read left wing left wing commentators raging about how uncouth and ignorant supporters of the right are, yet whenever I see on TV a political protest turn ugly, nine times out of ten it is the left, the 'liberals', 'progressives' and silly tarts dressed as vaginas who, faces contorted with rage and hate, are yelling abuse and threats, throwing bricks and bottles and trying to attack people representing a different view.
And yet the left's Social Justice Warriors are the ones who claim to be tolerant, inclusive and peace - loving.
John G Added Apr 29, 2017 - 4:01pm
John G, I know you intend to intimidate us all with your mighty intellect, but to be honest mate the banalities you post are about as intimidating as a loud fart.
Then you should be able to argue your case. Or is it that your case is a crock? Like your fractional reserve banking fairy tale?
Micahel Dolan Added Apr 29, 2017 - 4:57pm
John G, The leftist today are infiltrated with paid for criminals who are anti America and terrorist. The Democrat Party is now a party of thugs and Losers. Burn down schools-Shoot Cops- attack innocent people because they dare have different opinions or they dare vote for someone other than a leftist-louse democrat. Your type never argue your case, your type promotes riots and crime.
John G Added Apr 29, 2017 - 5:09pm
LOLz. The Democrats are waaaaaaay to the right of me. And you're an idiot.
Peter Corey Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:14am
>liberals are NOT leftists. They are pro-capitalist idiots like you.
 
In the US, the word "liberal" has meant "leftist" since at least the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson. True, "liberal" used to mean pro-capitalist, pro-private property, pro-gold standard, pro-rule of law, pro-limited government intervention, but the meaning of that word was changed by American leftists. See a standard history on this topic by journalist, Arthur Ekirch in his book, "The Decline of American Liberalism." Free PDF download here:
 
http://www.independent.org/pdf/book_excerpts/Foreword_DeclineAMLiberal_Higgs.pdf
"The Decline of American Liberalism"
by Arthur Ekirch
 
If an American wants to reclaim the original intent behind the word "liberal", he must instead use the phrase "classical liberal", or a neologism like "libertarian", which might capture some of the original meaning, but which is also vague in many ways, since there are people who call themselves, "Left libertarians" and "civil libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalist libertarians", etc.
John G Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:22am
The Democratic Party is a capitalist party. It is not leftist in any sense of the word. Obama, Clinton et al are right wing neoliberals and neoconservatives.
They hate the left.
Peter Corey Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:54am
>The Democratic Party is a capitalist party
 
Actually, it's a quasi-fascist party, or a neo-syndicalist party, or a crypto-corporatist party.
 
It's not a "classical liberal" party. When you've plugged your current bout of verbal diarrhea, you can read Arthur Ekirch's account of how "liberal" came to mean its opposite during the progressive era in the US. See link above to downloadable PDF.
 
John G Added Apr 30, 2017 - 12:58am
I suggest you read 1984. But I'm not interested in your pamphlets.
Peter Corey Added Apr 30, 2017 - 1:16am
>I'm not interested in your pamphlets.
 
I'm not interested in your lies, distortions, and overall ignorance of economics, banking, and history.
 
You've probably missed the link I posted to Arthur Ekirch's interesting historical account of how the word "liberal" in American political discourse acquired the opposite meaning from the one it originally had. That's understandable given that your head is stuck up your arse most of the time. Clear your orifice and click on the following link:
 
target="_blank">http://www.independent.org/pdf/book_excerpts/Foreword_DeclineAMLiberal_Higgs.pdf
"The Decline of American Liberalism"
by Arthur Ekirch
 
John G Added Apr 30, 2017 - 1:20am
I'm not interested.
Robert Burk Added Apr 30, 2017 - 4:34am
If the left and liberalism are good at anything it is controlling the narrative, they have been successful in claiming the high moral ground and keeping the right on the defensive. That and that along explains their success. If one can turn the tables around and get them on the defensive they are totally disarmed and unable to carry on a  conversation.  Has anyone ever seen a world leader more inarticulate than Justin Trudeau, yet he was idolized by the left during his election. The man is a buffoon.
 
Robert Burk Added Apr 30, 2017 - 4:37am
In the 60 the liberal left was the party of the oppressed but now the oppressed are the power and liberalism has become a reactionary bunch of SJW with no agenda but they still want to joust windmills.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 30, 2017 - 9:11am
John G,
If, as you say, you are not interested in the opinions of others (and are therefore by definition a bigot, a word you throw at others freely though you obviously don't know what it means) then why do you enter these threads where you must know you will encounter opinions that do not coincide with your own and also a quality of discussion that is obviously way above your level of intelligence.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 30, 2017 - 9:14am
Thanks to everyone who has contributed intelligent points to this thread, I can't concentrate because of the white noise at the moment but I will respond either later today or tomorrow.
Cheers, Ian
Bill H. Added Apr 30, 2017 - 11:13am
 
Both parties are so out of touch at the moment, they have become rendered useless. Therefore, those who continue to follow either one at this point are on the road to a dead-end street.
We blindly take "sides" and refuse to discuss, reason, and even think anymore because it is conveniently done for us by our "technology" and any "talking head" who makes us feel cozy and comfortable. Any news, information, or ideas that may be outside of our "bubbles" or comfort zone is simply deemed "fake".
As technology increasingly makes our decisions for us, we will become less able to use our own minds to make what decisions we will have left to perform.
George N Romey Added Apr 30, 2017 - 11:40am
Both parties have one master-the elite class.  Its a game they play and we are the chumps and pawns for amusement. 
John G Added Apr 30, 2017 - 2:45pm
John G,
If, as you say, you are not interested in the opinions of others (and are therefore by definition a bigot,
I'm not interested in reading Corey's pamphlet. That doesn't make me a bigot. You righties are such sensitive hypocrites aren't you?
Jeff Michka Added Apr 30, 2017 - 3:29pm
"Dolan" sez: The leftist today are infiltrated with paid for criminals who are anti America and terrorist.- More of your Trumpist bilge pumpings you have no source or proof for, but just "want to be true."-I contend you are more of  phony patriot than any "leftist" you are so critical about.  Blight'd fool.
Barry aka. Hyperminde Added Apr 30, 2017 - 10:01pm
RE (EXPAT): CAN A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE BE FAR BEHIND?
 
Uh ... that's what Obama wanted before he got in the White House (although the Media avoided reporting anything about it).
 
Do an Internet search with terms: video obama civilian national security force
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/08/27/barack-obama-civilian-army.html
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Ian Thorpe Added May 1, 2017 - 1:34pm
EXPAT, I understand what you mean about Vietnam, war do not necessarily change nations but humiliations do. Britian was changed by a much smaller war than 'nam, the Suez crisis of 1956 (or 5 maybe) was before the dawn of my political awareness but I grew up with its consequences, and because my Dad worked for national Daily newspapers and I met his colleagues regularly I had no shortage of people willing and well qualified to explain how, after we had survived World War 2 much diminished, the humiliation of being forced to climb down over the sovereignty of the Suez canal brought home to the nation and our elite that Britain was no longer one of the world's most powerful nations but was a second rate power.
And from there the seeds of our social revolution in the 1960s (which was different in some important ways from America's) were sown.
The best thing to come out of it was the collapse of the class system, people were not content to 'know their place' any more.
Ian Thorpe Added May 1, 2017 - 1:51pm
Peter Corey, it is absolutely right to assert that liberals are leftists, we seldom see those who 'identify' as liberal trying to engage in a discussion on any important topics, instead all we see from them are contradictions, distortions, lies, name - calling, smears and what they would call, were it directed at them, hate speech. This style of rhetoric which has been nurtured in university faculties and by liberal media is straight from the Alinsky and Frankrurt School playbooks for those intending to disrupt political stability.
Ian Thorpe Added May 1, 2017 - 1:55pm
Robert Burk, I don't think it is so much a case of the liberal left being good as controlling the narrative as the opponents of these authoritarians actually believe in free speech and so we are prepared to let them put their case while they repay that courtesy by trying to shout down people who hold different views to theirs.
Ian Thorpe Added May 1, 2017 - 2:28pm
Bill H, you say both sides are out of touch, I know that to be true of out three main national parties and also of The Scottish Nationalists in the UK. You will also see similar claims repeated on news sites and forums all around Europe. The ruling elites have abandoned the people who put them where they are in pursuit of a global agenda.
What's so laughable about much of the nonsense we see in these threads is that the people who scream about 'evil capitalism' don't realise they are supporting the global banking cartels and the corporations that want to suffocate independent businesses.
Ian Thorpe Added May 1, 2017 - 2:30pm
George, ALL parties appear to have one controlling elite, here, there, in Gremany, France, Japan, India, Australia
Ian Thorpe Added May 1, 2017 - 2:31pm
Barry, aka Hyperminde, that's not an issue I can common on but thanks for contributing to the thread.
Jeff Michka Added May 1, 2017 - 9:18pm
Micahel "Fake News/Mr. & Mrs. Mindless Disinformation tries to suggest again:  John G, The leftist today are infiltrated with paid for criminals who are anti America and terrorist. The Democrat Party is now a party of thugs and Losers. Burn down schools-Shoot Cops- attack innocent people because they dare have different opinions or they dare vote for someone other than a leftist-louse democrat. - And you have a cite for all this, eh?  Of course you don't.  It's just stuff you think others should believe because you, primary sucker for it, does.  I Want to see a payslip.
Bill H. Added May 1, 2017 - 9:49pm
When an administration attempts to negate and eliminate the news media, who's job it is to question and critique the government on the people's side, it is on the way to becoming a dictatorship. When the president seems to only make moves to increase his wealth, and that of his family and close business associates, that is a pure indication of corruption.
I have voted for candidate of both parties over the years, but I have never seen the likes of the Orange Buffoon. 
John G Added May 2, 2017 - 3:21am
Rich people run the world and own the fake democratic systems of the west. They own the fake left parties that participate in the theatre.
Blaming the left for any of the shit you're putting up with is facile and fucking stupid.
But most of you are much worse than fucking stupid.
J. Riddle Added May 2, 2017 - 3:42am
Dictionaries aren't noted for being particularly politically sophisticated; when it comes to those matters, history books are far more important.
 
This...
 
"Liberalism which is as close as any workable system can get to target="_blank">anarchism."
 
...is ludicrous. Liberals are capitalists, the polar opposite of anarchists--a great example of why history is more important. Liberals advocating Stalinism, meanwhile, are like the Unicorn Division of the Orc Society (or the Alliance of Muslim Socialist Presidents of the United States)--a ridiculous, made-up thing invented to entertain certain people.
J. Riddle Added May 2, 2017 - 3:44am
"Actually, it's a quasi-fascist party, or a neo-syndicalist party, or a crypto-corporatist party."
 
Yeah, when making up a bunch of shit, why limit oneself to only one, eh?
John G Added May 2, 2017 - 4:19am
invented to entertain certain people.
 
Indeed. Victims of capitalist disinformation.
Ian Thorpe Added May 2, 2017 - 9:29am
J Riddle, there's a big difference between classical liberalism and modern, politically correct,  authoritarian liberalism. At the time classical liberalism was developed as a political philosophy there was no socialism other than in the communal living of certain Christian religious sects such as the Anabaptists and Moravians in Germanic counties and The Levellers in Britain.
Early advocates of Liberalism, including John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, although the ideas can be traced back to Cicero and Seneca in ancient Rome and the Athenian Philosophers in Greece. At the time the founders of modern liberalism lived and worked there was no alternative to capitalism other than a return to medieval feudalism so it is ludicrous to talk of them being capitalists unless you favour a system of oligarchical feudalism such as the one George Soros proposes.
Neoliberalism, which is what I assume to mean by liberalism, is nothing to do with classical liberalism, it is about a system developed on the collaboration of an all powerful central government and lightly regulated big business cartels. As such it is hardly deistinguishable economically from neo-Conservatism. This is not capitalism but corporatism (although it closely echoes Mussolini's definition of fascism,) so fascists, not liberals are the polar opposite of anarchists. In favouring small government, minimal intervention and maximum tolerance of individualism and self determination, liberalism is, as I said, as close as any workable system can be to anarchism, which advocates no government at all and which, therefore, no sane person would ever suggest as a viable form of government.
In eighteenth century Britain there was a loose political group known as Whigs who advocated laissez faire economics but were socially very conservative, (the Whigs were active in the American colonies too under a different name). These people are wrongly referred to a 'liberals' by most school and higher education history text books, in current terminology they are referred to as neoliberals and their political stance being based on the Patrician caste of The Roman Empire is about as far from 'neo' as is possible. The Whigs believed they should be free to further their own interests without any restriction, they also believed in, and used their wealth and power, to obtain draconian punishments for anyone who got in their way. Hardly acceptable behaviour for liberals, but these guys were really libertines, they claimed the right to act without constraint to the extend of being able to roger servant girls and take no responsibility for resulting pregnancies.
Before you start invoking history books to justify ill informed comments you might be well advised to read a few. The world did not begin when FDR's government passed The New Deal.
Jeff Jackson Added May 2, 2017 - 1:30pm
Ian, love the "champagne socialist" name, very fitting. You certainly know your history and ideologies. Very insightful and well-educated. Be careful, though. Lotsa WB's don't like the history textbooks that you and I read. Quoting historically important books often means little or nothing to them, even if you and I believe and understand it as the truth. 
Ian Thorpe Added May 2, 2017 - 2:56pm
Jeff, good advice, thanks. Trolls are a plague at any free posting site like this, as I warned someone a few days ago, we just have to be prepared to become Big Billy Goat Gruff. But even going down to the level of fairy tales is too advanced for some people who spend a lot of time in these threads.
Champagne Socialist BTW is not originally mine, it's a well used phrase in Britain for describing politicians, businessmen and media luvvies who live millionaire lifestyles while telling people on ordinary incomes they must learn to be content with less because we have a duty to help Africa.
The name that has come up most often recently in connection with this is Bono, lead singer of the band U2, with an estimated fortune of £650million. When asked how much of his wealth he is prepared to give to African projects he babbles about how much time he spends working for third world charities.
Ian Thorpe Added May 2, 2017 - 3:12pm
Having said above that no sane person would ever suggest anarchy as a viable form of government, I must confess that, emotionally at least, I am philosophically an anarchist. This is why I considered putting myself forward in the forthcoming election as a candidate for Britain's long established joker party, The Monster Raving Loony Party.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "It is the duty of ever citizen to question authority," but as difficult questions are met with evasions, the next best thing is to ridicule authority. The Loony approach is entirely in keeping with the spirit of my last political foray when I ran as The Liberal Libations Party, campaigning on a policy of "bigger drink for everyone."
For years after that the Labour government at the time relaxed laws covering the sale of alcohol. My policies changed Britain even though I didn't win :-)
 
Jeff Jackson Added May 2, 2017 - 4:39pm
Ian, aren't some of those names straight out of Monty Python? I'd come over and vote for you, but I have these metal things that make loud noises of which I don't think your government would approve.
By the way, the "politicians, businessmen and media luvvies who live millionaire lifestyles while telling people on ordinary incomes they must learn to be content with less because we have a duty to help Africa" sound like some of the folks here in 'Murica, including, of course, the political class and the C-suite desk monkeys.
Jolly good show!  Carry on mate! 
John G Added May 3, 2017 - 3:23am
I am philosophically an anarchist.
LOLz. Utter bullshit. You're not an anarchist in any real sense of the word.
 
John G Added May 3, 2017 - 3:25am
You're one of these libertarian nutters that believe capitalism and anarchism can co-exist.
Well they can't buddy. Capitalism is a class system.
Ian Thorpe Added May 3, 2017 - 9:00am
Jeff Jackson, not quite Python, but that school of comedy, Python did a sketch one about 'The Silly Party' but the Monster Raving Loonys were formed before that by a rock singer named Screaming Lord Sutch. Sutch stood in many elections over thirty years, losing his deposit in all but earning far more from the gig he was offered. A true British eccentric, and as long as the name of his joke party survives his sprit will live on.
BTW I do have several T shirts with Python catch phrases, 'Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition,' 'He's Not The Messiah, He's A Very Naughty Boy,' and 'Blessed Are The Cheesemakers.'
Wherever I go in them, they raise a few smiles.
Ian Thorpe Added May 3, 2017 - 9:05am
John G, the way that after reading a couple of articles and a few comments by somebody enables you to believe you know more about them than they know about themselves.
This tells me you are either:
a) endowed with super powers
b) stark raving mad
I know which I'd be willing to bet on.
Ian Thorpe Added May 3, 2017 - 9:09am
John G,
Your last comment, I mean your most recent although many people here wish it would be your last, only tells us you do not know what either capitalism or anarchism mean.
Do you really think your monomaniacal ravings impress anybody?
John G Added May 3, 2017 - 2:38pm
I've read enough of your pseudo-pychology and fake economics to see you as a devotee of 'libertarian' ideology.
That they see themselves as 'anarcho-capitalists' is just a fact. Capitalism is a class structure where the capitalist class rules over society and the economy. Disguised as an economic theory it may be but that is the nub.
Anarchism is pretty much the opposite.
If your arguments were so sound you wouldn't need to engage in so much ad hominem and abuse.
If your economics was so sound you wouldn't spend so much time and energy on whining about the left, who have no power anyway.
Stop whining like a little girl.
Ian Thorpe Added May 3, 2017 - 4:23pm
John G, by accusing others of indulging in ad hominem commenting when almost all your comments are ad hominem (because you cannot put together and intelligent comment on the topic under discussion) you show yourself to be a hypocrite on top of all your other shortcomings and delusions.
As for your having read enough of what I post, well why the fuck do you keep reading it then for fuck's sake, you idiot?
You're like a baby John, screaming until you get attention.
John G Added May 4, 2017 - 2:44am
You have a self awareness problem.
Your article is an ad hominem attack on the left, fuckwad.
Jeff Michka Added May 8, 2017 - 3:28pm
"Champagne Socialists" sound like interviewees in a BBC green room before showtime.  Not any that I know.

Recent Articles by Writers Ian Thorpe follows.