ANALYSING “THE GUCCI X DAPPER DAN “MADE IN HARLEM” USING THE MARXIST LENS

 

ANALYSING “THE GUCCI X DAPPER DAN “MADE IN HARLEM” USING THE MARXIST LENS

“The Gucci x Dapper Dan “Made in Harlem” video looks like a celebration of Black creativity, but when we look at it through a Marxist lens, it’s really a clever way for a big brand to use Harlem’s culture to make more money. At first, we notice the video feels inspiring but then we see Dapper Dan working with Gucci in Harlem, showing off the neighborhood’s style and spirit. But Marxist theory helps us see what’s really going on behind the scenes. Gucci isn’t partnering with Harlem out of love or respect, rather they’re doing it because Harlem’s style has value they can sell. This is about profit, not pride. For years, Gucci didn’t work with people like Dapper Dan, and now that his designs are popular, they’ve made him part of their brand. Gucci is using Harlem’s image and history to look fresh and authentic, but the real benefit and kudos goes to the brand, not the community.

To start with, the video hides the hard work and history behind the fashion, showing off style while keeping quiet about who really does the labor and who gets paid. We see makeup artists, camera crews, designers, models, and Dan himself putting in long hours. But their stories aren’t fully told. They’re treated like background players in Gucci’s show. Even Dapper Dan’s journey is edited into a neat success story, skipping the part where the fashion world once pushed him out. Using the Marxist theory, we are reminded that the people doing the work aren’t the ones in charge. Moreover, the campaign appropriates Harlem’s aesthetic language while stripping it of its socioeconomic context, flattening struggle into style. In this behind-the-scenes look, Harlem is more backdrop than battleground. It’s romanticized in shots of brownstones and hair salons, but there’s no real engagement with the forces that shaped Dapper Dan’s hustle: systemic racism, economic exclusion, and creative resilience in the face of class oppression. Instead, Harlem becomes a brandable narrative for Gucci’s luxury world — a curated flavor of authenticity to differentiate them in a saturated market. They help create the look and feel of the campaign, but Gucci controls the message and the money. This is how capitalism works: regular people do the labor, but the people at the top like the heads of big fashion houses get the credit and profit. The video wants us to focus on how cool and meaningful the project looks, not on who’s actually being paid and who’s just being used.

Moreover, Harlem is shown in the video as an everyday setting, but its real struggles and not so cool roots are left out to make the brand look more interesting. Gucci films in Harlem to give the campaign a certain look raw, real, and stylish — but they don’t talk about the deeper reasons why Harlem’s fashion came to be. Dapper Dan’s original designs were born out of need and creativity in a place that didn’t have access to luxury. People made fashion out of what they had because they were shut out of mainstream spaces. But the video leaves all that out. Instead, Harlem becomes a backdrop, something to be used to make Gucci seem edgy and in touch. This just shows their lack of respect for the black culture in action that is taking the look of a place and ignoring its history, showing us only it’s good side. Marxist theory shows how people have placed making easy money over respect for culture — how it looks or sounds — and turns it into something to sell, while forgetting where it came from or who created it.

Also, Dapper Dan’s story is powerful, but it’s also used in a way that fits into Gucci’s brand rather than challenging the system that once excluded him. The video makes it seem like Dan’s success is proof that anyone can make it if they work hard enough. But that idea hides the truth: Dan is the exception, not the rule. He had to fight to be seen, and now that he’s part of Gucci, the brand uses his story to look progressive. In a Marxist view, this is how the system protects itself. Instead of fixing the unfair rules of fashion and business, capitalism picks out a few success stories and puts them on display, so it looks like change is happening. But real change would mean more people from Harlem having real power and ownership — not just being part of a photo shoot. Dan’s talent is real, but the system is still the same. His story is being used to make Gucci look good, not to change how fashion works.

In conclusion, this campaign gives the appearance of respect and collaboration, but it mainly helps the people at the top, not the community it borrows from. Representation matters but we have to ask: who’s really winning here? Gucci gets credit for being “inclusive” while keeping control of the money, the message, and the image. Dapper Dan and Harlem’s culture help sell this campaign, but most of Harlem doesn’t get a seat at the table. A Marxist critique reminds us to look past the surface. Even though the video is full of style and pride, it doesn’t fix the deeper issues — like class inequality, cultural theft, and how capitalism always finds new ways to sell rebellion back to us. This isn’t to deny the importance of visibility or the power of Dapper Dan’s narrative, but to contextualize it. Marxist critique helps us cut through the visual seduction and ask: who profits? Who labors? Who is included in the narrative — and who’s left out? Gucci’s campaign frames itself as inclusive and innovative, but it’s ultimately a luxury brand leveraging Harlem’s soul for its own gain. The aesthetics of resistance have been harvested and hollowed, turned into commodity spectacle for global consumption. If we don’t interrogate these moves critically, we risk mistaking representation for transformation, and fashion’s flash for real structural change. So until the people who inspire the fashion actually own the fashion, it’s just another example of the rich taking from the poor and calling it collaboration.