And we call that place ‘America’. 
That’s Marxism (or Christianity, I can never remember which), not socialism.
I agree with other posters that being rich doesn’t make you a hypocrite if you also favor socialism. It only makes you a hypocrite if you guard your riches using elaborate means. A socialist can be rich, but a socialist should also love paying taxes and not fight tooth and nail to avoid them. Anyone who advocates a 50%, 60%, or even a 70% tax rate shouldn’t be using barely legal means to get their taxes down to 15%.
Oh, and any European rich guy who moves to the US to pay lower taxes really shouldn’t be extolling the virtues of social democracy, much less pure socialism. If it was so great, he wouldn’t have left.
Well firstly, let’s just note that this thread is a zombie.
Secondly, while I’ve never been able to find anyone who agrees to a particular definition of Socialism - particularly not an actual Socialist - let’s just quote the quick overview from the Wikipedia:
It’s likely that the origins of Socialism go back to class-warfare. The originators (like Marx) felt that the correct answer to class injustice was to make everyone equal. The economics and government structure of a society where everyone is equal are outgrowths of that belief, but everyone has their own opinion of what that would look like - hence the lack of any particular unity of belief. But traditionally, personal wealth would always be considered anathema to the goals of the movement. Even if the individuals would use their money fairly - ideally giving all of it back to help others - you can’t really trust that they won’t give extra juice to their children. That would just recreate the class system.
Anyways, I do note that this thread is amazingly sparse when it comes to actual quotes from the band. So here’s one:
Very few Socialists are actually Socialists. Most are just unskilled, fiscally unwise, poor work ethic, average people who are disgruntled that they’re working a 40 hour week, just like everyone else, and yet living in a piece of crap double-wide. They’re not so much interested in the mechanics of a Socialist system, they just buy into the rhetoric that it’s Rich White Men who are keeping them down and rant about that part of it, because “the man’s keeping me down” makes a lot more emotional sense than “Well if we presume that each person is an equal of all others, then his wage and earnings should be the same as all others, necessitating that a central government be set up to watch and defend against anyone amassing an unequal share of the resources of the nation.”
I suspect that RATM are Socialists in the same sense as the first group - people who are angry against the man and are buying into the party line that Socialism is the solution, even though they themselves don’t really understand how. So far as they are concerned, if they can bring down “the man”, they’ve done what needs doing. Since their music advocates this to the general populace, they feel like they’ve done their bit. Clearly, they aren’t the man, and they’re helping the cause, so there’s really no argument against their spending their weekends lounging in a pool with a bikini babes, behind their 10 room mansions.
Basically, they would need to be more intelligent to understand what Socialism is, to be able to understand that they were being hypocritical. But since they’re not that intelligent, they don’t know enough to be hypocrites.
An asteroid, colliding with the Earth, and destroying all life on the planet isn’t a genocidal maniac. It’s just a big, dumb rock.
There was a Brazilian bishop who said something along the same lines – something like “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they’re poor, they call me a Communist.”
Brand is right. Dismissing someone who talks about the poor, or the conditions that create poverty, because that person has some wealth is just a “check your privilege” thing – a way of dismissing that person’s ideas as unworthy of consideration without actually addressing those ideas.