Return of A Legend: A Marxist Critique of Gucci x Dapper Dan’s Harlem Collaboration

 

Gucci-Dapper: a special collaboration

The short video “Gucci x Dapper Dan Made in Harlem A” is a behind-the-scenes video featuring Gucci, a luxury fashion house and Dapper Dan, a Harlem-based fashion designer. This video shows models and stylists in the streets of Harlem showcasing some Gucci outfits, highlighting how Gucci has been brought to such a traditional setting as Harlem. This video shows class struggle in fashion by showing how a global luxury brand, Gucci, collaborates with a designer from a working-class background. Through the Marxist lens, this critique would explore how power, class and money play a role in this collaboration.

Using the Marxist lens, the video highlights the contrast between Gucci, a popular brand renowned for its expensive products, and the economic struggles of Harlem, as portrayed by Dapper Dan, a fashion designer from Harlem. Aside from the visible contrast, the video also highlights how luxury fashion makes use of the street culture to make money, hiding the real work on how the product came by. This also shows the gap between the rich and the poor. Dapper Dan is an American fashion designer from Harlem, New York, known for creating street wear using luxury brand logos, he started this at a time when luxury brands ignored Black consumers. Dapper Dan made luxury brand much more accessible to the Black community especially for those in Harlem but Gucci’s collaboration with him was to get him to use his style and story to gain audience from the younger Black community those who respect Dapper Dan but regardless most of the profit and influence gained from the collaboration would still go to Gucci. This isn’t just about the rich or poor, but who benefits more from this collaboration. It might look like both sides are winning, Gucci finally recognizes Black people and includes them and Dapper is finally recognized for who he is after been kicked out of the fashion world. However, at the end of it all, Gucci is still in control of the business and money, but leverages Dapper Dan’s creativity to sell more products and even to a newer audience, which gives Gucci cultural capital. This value comes from being connected to something real, local and respected. So while Dapper Dan receives recognition and respect, Gucci still gets more money and control, so while Dapper Dan might be involved, it is still Gucci selling the clothes, making the clothes, fixing the price, this is where the class struggle becomes clear, Dapper Dan here is regarded as the laborer the one walking behind the scene, bringing the designs, the style for the Black audience to resonate with but Gucci is the capitalist- the one with the power, controlling how things run and collecting the fattest reward. This is what the Marxist lens criticizes, the class struggle, showing how capitalism works, the workers create the product behind the scenes, but the owner gains more of the profit than those who work for it, making the rich richer.

The video also brings up the idea of who really controls fashion and whose stories get told. Gucci has the money, resources, and global influence to decide which styles and designers are seen as important. Even though Dapper Dan has been doing this for decades, it wasn’t until Gucci came into the picture that his work became fully accepted by the mainstream. This shows how the capitalist system controls not just the products, but also the narrative, who gets to be called a real designer or artist. Dapper Dan’s story is being used to make Gucci look modern and inclusive, but the spotlight is still filtered through the lens of a big company with power. This situation also highlights how Black creativity is often used for profit without full ownership. Dapper Dan created a whole fashion movement by remixing luxury logos into something new and meaningful for his community. When big brands like Gucci ignore people like him for years and then suddenly embrace them once they’re useful, it shows a pattern. This is what Marxism critiques — a system where the labor, style, and culture of the working class (especially Black creators) are used to make the elite richer, without giving them equal say or control. In this case, Harlem’s culture becomes a background for Gucci’s photoshoot, but the brand is the one that gets the final say in how everything is shown and sold.

It’s also important to look at how capitalism turns even struggles into trends. The collaboration looks like progress, but it can be seen as the system adapting just to survive. Gucci, a brand that once ignored or took legal action against people like Dan, is now using him as a symbol of innovation. Instead of breaking down the wall between the rich and the poor, they just paint it with cooler colors. This keeps the structure the same, just with new faces. Marxist theory reminds us that real change means changing who owns the power, not just who gets featured in the campaign. Even though Dapper Dan benefits in some ways, the deeper structures don’t change. He now has more fame, a studio supported by Gucci, and the chance to work with a major brand. But he still doesn’t own Gucci. He doesn’t get to decide how the fashion world works. That means this isn’t full equality — it’s more like inclusion under limits. Marxists would say that true liberation happens when the workers control the system, not just appear in it. Dapper Dan’s face is present, but the power is still with Gucci. Another angle to look at is how the working class in Harlem is involved. In the video, the models and stylists appear stylish and creative, but it is not clear how much they are benefiting from the project. Are they being paid fairly? Are they given long-term opportunities or just short-term exposure? These are the kinds of questions Marxism asks. It’s not enough for people to be seen; they need to be empowered. Just showing up in the video doesn’t mean the community has gained real financial or social power.

The aesthetics of the video also show a kind of fantasy. Harlem looks rich in style and energy, but this can hide the real issues the community still faces, like poverty, gentrification, and lack of resources. Capitalism has a way of making things look better than they are to sell a dream. Marxist critique tries to pull back the curtain to ask: Who is selling the dream, and who is paying for it? In this case, Harlem’s vibe is being sold, but is Harlem gaining from it? This issue also reflects a larger pattern where collaborations between corporations and local heroes may create buzz but often fail to shift real economic power. Brands like Gucci benefit from the “cool” factor and the legitimacy of working with cultural icons like Dapper Dan, but often the local community continues to struggle financially. These collaborations might improve visibility, but they do not always lead to long-term wealth redistribution. Marxist analysis emphasizes that symbolic victories can distract from the bigger issue — that capitalism uses the language of inclusion to keep its profit-driven structure intact.

In conclusion, the video shows that fashion is not just about clothes; it’s about power, money, and who gets credit. Dapper Dan may now be a recognized name, but his influence is still controlled by a bigger system that profits more than he does. Gucci gets cultural capital and access to a wider audience, while Harlem’s role is mostly symbolic. From a Marxist view, this is a classic case of the working class creating value that the ruling class profits from. The video may look like a celebration, but underneath it, the class struggle is still present and very real.