Why do people hate champagne socialists?

Russell Brand just epitomises the Champagne Socialist. Cant stand the idiot for several reasons, one being that he's called profit a dirty word and he can't stand capitalism, when really he is the success story of capitalism; the rags to riches story. He made his millions moving to the land of capitalism (hollywood), and then he preaches all this nonsense about corporation tax and what have you. Did you know that this man was head of a company that offered tax breaks to his clients? (read link)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2483929/Russell-Brands-unsocialist-15m-business-empire.html

Ill tell you what, if you really hate capitalism then move to North Korea and see how much you love it there mate. OR, give all your profits up.

He's a hypocrite, and furthermore week in week out he seems to tell us to vote for one party after another. And his call for revolution and all that nonsense is so vague, when Paxman interviewed Brand he completely melted and couldn't give anything specific as to what he actually wanted. Please don't take him seriously, or in fact any champagne socialist seriously.

I'm a skint uni student and I believe in helping the poor etc, now, if tomorrow I won the lottery and became a millionaire, I would still be the same person and hold the same beliefs. Just because somebody is rich does not mean they cannot be socialists. Not all rich people are evil who don't care about the poor and not all rich people are tax avoiders. 'Champagne socialists' want higher taxes for the rich, and that's including themselves - hardly a bad thing, they aren't being selfish, they actually advocate for things that don't benefit them personally, but benefit ordinary people. If all of the rich were 'champagne socialist', we wouldn't have all this tax avoidance etc in the world.

Having a nice house or designer clothes does not make anyone a hypocrite, you dont have to give away 99% of your income and live on a council estate to be a socialist. It is an ideology and it is not dependent on your income. If I won the lottery tomorrow and bought myself a mansion and a Range Rover, I would still believe the rich, including me, should pay higher taxes and so on because I am concerned with society, not just myself.

Unlike most Tory voters, who require govwrnment subsidy, guarantees like property rights and the opening up to exploitation of markets in essentials to keep their wealth extraction rackets going, Brand earned his money in the least coercive market I can think of: entertainment.

No socialist has a problem with people earning wealth when they produce value someone is prepared to pay for, as long as that person is not coerced.

Brand earned his money in the least coercive market I can think of: entertainment.

So Brand didn't have "guarantees" like property rights to make his money?

Opening up new markets gets people out of poverty but just because someone you don't like is making money off it makes it bad?

lol, Entertainment business is full of Coercion, Brand made 15 million standing on a stage acting like an idiot because of marketing and hype while millions of people doing actual real, important jobs earn nothing.

A lot are of the view that they only do it to feel less guilty about having 5 cars and a mansion. Which I kind of agree with, a lot see them as just odd really. I don't hate them, maybe people just hate the rich anyway hey

I don't hate them.

I just don't like the fact that we live in a society where some people can hardly afford to feed themselves while others have a mansion and 10 cars.

Well yes he did, but he wasn't reliant on them; his business model wasn't centred around using them as leverage.

What? Of course he relied on them. If someone started stealing his CDs or starting doing shows under his name; they would be breaking the law and would be legally punished. Without the "guarantee" of property rights, you cannot have exchange to any real extent as no one is guaranteed that they won't be stolen from.