This is interesting:
“In the past 30-or-so years, hip hop has tried politics and it has tried gangsterism. But in the end it settled for capitalism, which energised it and brought it to a position of global dominance. American rappers like Puff Daddy and Master P, men who fought their way into the big time, did so by selling a vision of independence, empowerment and material success. That vision is also found, if less vividly, in Britain’s rap music. And though hip hop retains unpleasant features, the core message, that people can have better lives, is incontestably a good one.”
A point for we pro-market zealots to remember is that defending the market is not the same as defending all of the stuff that gets bought or sold in a market. The freedom to produce and sell products and services is emphatically not the same as saying that all of these things are splendid. Some are mediocre. Some are bloody awful, like rap music, in my opinion. Musical taste is, in any event, notoriously subjective. (I even know of friends who hate music, period). But it is interesting how even a lefty magazine such as Prospect points out that how the profit motive can have its own benign effect on a genre as aggressive as rap. You can tell that capitalism is weaving its magic when people start moaning that a certain once-rebellious arts and music genre has lost its “edge” (ie, it is no longer downright nasty).
Not sure about this. First of all I doubt the whole underlying story here. But even if we ignore this:
Hip hop might have become more popular but this could be because the market moved rather than because Hip hop moved to the market.
The fact that a product moves from becoming niche to mass market does not mean that it is more ‘capitalist’. All goods that are produced without subsidy and purchased freely are equally ‘good’.
Lastly, not an issue with the article or post, but I would like to observe the irony that libertarianism is very unsuccessful in the ‘market place for ideas’. This can only very partly be explained by alternative philosophies being subsidised. I would love for libertarianism to cease to become “edgy”, but only if this was because the market moved to us.
There are some strong, unsettling and in the end enlightening messages in some rap/hip hop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EJZk7H9-UA
PeterT:
What makes you think so?
People want easy solutions to life’s difficult problems, so the allure of collectivism is, alas, always going to be pretty strong for some people when things are difficult, as they are the moment. But for what it is worth, I think that libertarian ideas – broadly conceived – can do quite well at times, too. Take the pushback against ID cards in this country, for instance, or the obvious popularity – among the broad public and NOT the political classes – of anti-nanny statism, and so on. In fact, in the US, books by Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand, say, still sell shedloads, judging by their Amazon rankings.
Capitalism unlike all the other “isms” has no social objective, such as can be imputed even to Libertarian -ism
Indeed, RRS. Capitalism should not be mistaken to be a philosophy or an ideology – it is simply a term that describes a certain economic system, and I’m not even sure that semantically it’s the best possible description thereof.
The article (notably the summarizing paragraph you quoted) seems to imply that the message of hip-hop is capitalism. I’m certainly no expert (not even a fan of the genre), but from what I can see that is completely the opposite of the truth. Yes, one of its core messages is consumerism (conspicuous consumption, “bling”), but that is by no means “capitalism”. Indeed, given the equally-prevalent “gangsta” theme glorified by rap I think the financing of all this consumerism is suggested to be more by criminal activity than by honest capitalism.
Which is not to say that the purveyors of hip-hop are not wildly successful capitalists; clearly some of them are, as was noted in the article. Another one, not mentioned there, is Russell Simmons, a pioneer of the genre who has parlayed his recording success into a far-flung business empire including clothing, movie and television productions, advertising, etc. These people are brilliant and creative marketers whose achievements deserve to be celebrated. They are capitalists in the best sense of the word. But while capitalism, or entrepreneurship, is the message of their lives it is not the message of their “art”.
Maybe if your idea of ‘better life’ centres around the mindless acquisition of gaudy bling bullshit.
Well it depends on the magazine you are reading I suppose. The Guardian doesn’t agree (what a suprise!), It’s really all about freeing the worlds oppressed and is in a long line from African chants (yawn) through the Blues to Woody Guthrie and Robert Johnson and on…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/13/hip-hop-planet
My least admired genre of music I must say, because it is so monotonously repetitive, and generally moronic. After Grandmaster Flash it all went downhill.
I thought Akala eas a Cub Scout leader by the way? Ho Hum.
Maybe if your idea of ‘better life’ centres around the mindless acquisition of gaudy bling bullshit.
Person A’s life centres around the mindless aquisition of gaudy, bling bullshit.
Person B invests capital in the manufacture of gaudy, bling bullshit.
Person C sells his labour to person B, manufacturing gaudy, bling bullshit.
Everyone’s a winner!
Especially Person D, who, owning a lot of tanks, discovers that he can extract cash from persons A, B and C at every stage of the process and then give a portion of said cash to person E, who draws a salary campaigning against gaudy bling bullshit and it’s nefarious effect on society…
Even if it is all about the acquisition of gaudy bling bullshit, who cares? Green get the money, dolla dolla bill y’all.
Rap made money because it is simple to sell make and simpler to sell under the style of ‘“bad” is “cool” ‘
At the risk of rubbing everyone up the wrong way here’s a couple of little thoughts.
Re capitalism, libertarianism and ‘social objectives’: The social objective of capitalism is all bound in “exchange” under contract. The social aspect is inherent in the need for rules by which the idea of contract must be upheld.
This “Idea of Contract” is why the most (only truly?) saleable version of Libertarianism is in fact basic conservatism (Note: Not conservatism as defined by the left!), this is because in conservatism the freedoms of the individual/group within each person’s world view are what each conservative individual is fighting to conserve. As long as individuality retains respect then the individual’s, and thus the individual/group’s, liberties remain respected and conserved. For conservative individuals to retain their own freedoms requires a certain amount of liberty to be granted to others and a certain amount of contract rules to be adhered to in order for the “give and take” of the contract to work.
That perfect ideal of Libertarianism always has a core following that refuses to bow to contract rules in exchange for freedoms, and thus always, and in all ways, fails before it starts.
I am a lifelong hip hop fan.
Hip Hop was (and to a large part still is) a DIY game. It is about people using their talent and labour to do well for themselves without looking for handouts.
Hip Hop artists, to a large extent, are natural conservatives even if they dont know it.
“The Pirate’s Dilema, how youth culture is changing capitalism” is a good read on the subject of Hip Hop and capitalism. But as some one who grew up listening to it, its a dying art form for me, they say the “kings” of hip hop are Kanye and Jay-z but theyre both middle aged and CEO’s of corporations. What the kids are making nowerdays is something else compared to what we listened to.
Certainly I’ve always thought that in the western world buying 45’s, LPs and later CD’s is the first taste kids get of capitalism (now I presume they just bit torrent em). There’s a misnomer that people who were hippies in the 60’s or punks in the 70’s grew up to be democrats/labourites. I don’t think this is true. If your Steve Job or Keith Richards, making money from a trade youre still a capitalist!
ManikMonkee: hence the importance of distinction between ideology and practice which I mentioned above in response to RRS: Jobs and Richards aside (I know nothing about their ideology, if any), too many of these “baby boomers’ are socialist in their ideology, but capitalists in practice (and yes, in that sense, capitalism includes ‘crony capitalism’ and ‘corporatism’).
Hmm-
Have you not really stated the reverse of the order of human action that results in an “economic” condition of capitalism?
As Alisa noted, even the designation as a “system” may not be correct semantically. Perhaps it is best defined as a resultant condition.
It results when there is commutative exchange, which has evolved norms of conduct that are observed as rules (principally with respect to obligations and the performance thereof). The condition did not bring about, or have an “objective,” of exchange by contract, or the establisment of rules.
Instead, the objectives of humans in their interactions led to exchanges (not always commutative), which led to rules ( first among those with the power of violence), then formalized by custom into contract.
Over time, in the “West” (but obviously not everwhere) the exchange nature of social organization has produced several conditions of capitalism, the most enduring and effective of which has required varying forms of markets.
Capitalism does not have a social objective. Where it exists, it is a resultant condition of the objectives of humans within a social order. The nature and strenghth of that condition vary in accordance with the objectives of the human interactions within each social order.
RRS, apologies, it was quite late when I wrote that and I didn’t make it as clear as I could:
Capitalism has a social objective which is hidden in plain sight; Capitalism’s social objective is: “Everyone should enter into contract for gain”.
Admittedly this may not seem like much of a social objective, but a social objective it most definitely is because it seeks to maximise an aspect of social behaviour: The lawfully organised exchange of things for gain.
Alternatively this objective could be stated as: “All may profit thru contract”; or Advertised as: “All WILL profit thru contract.”
Capitalism completely fails if there is no social interaction/objective. Its basic requirement is people, specifically people to whom something can be exchanged for gain.
The social objectives of other “-isms” also may have a contract, but their contracts generally are ‘group’ contracts, imposed upon, and beyond the reach of the individual and tends toward being only negotiable through threat of force.
Forgot to mention this: All social objectives are available in capitalism thru individual contract.
No Hmmm, I’m with RRS on this: systems or conditions don’t have objectives, individuals do. As capitalism is a system (or condition, as RRS corrected) that is not directed by any individual(s), it cannot possibly have an ‘objective’. What you call ‘objective’ may possibly be better referred to as an ‘effect’ or ‘result’.
Alisa, yes, but mostly no (grin) – capitalism as a system is dependent upon the objectives of the individual. The base(and priority) objective of the individual is “Gain thru contract” . The gain is not merely an effect – it is the objective effect: ergo, effectively the objective 🙂
To attain the system of capitalism some “given’s” are required. e.g. that certain rules of contract and law will be observed. Therefore capitalism requires a foundation of law on which it can operate as a system. This foundation requires certain freedoms of the individual in order to work. The type of capitalism is determined by the law and philosophy of the areas in which it operates. Capitalism is like an add on “app” to any philosophies which allow for freedom for the individual. So to say that capitalism is a merely a system isn’t entirely correct, for capitalism incorporates a prior philosophy in order to operate.
I agree, Hmmm, it’s just it always rubs me the wrong way when people talk about systems/conditions/societies/states etc. that supposedly have objectives, wishes, feelings or what have you. As long as we are on the same page there…
Actually, Alisa, I don’t agree (or rather, I agree with RSS and with your earlier posts).
First, I disagree that “the objective of the individual is ‘Gain thru contract’.” The objective of the individual is gain, period. Contract is a mechanism which has evolved to maximize individuals’ gains in the aggregate, and is (obviously) a useful tool for individuals operating within the social construct as it helps to ensure that the desired gain is actually achieved. But just as “capitalism” is an emergent property of certain social organizations, so “contract” is an emergent property of a capitalist “system” (for want of a better term).
I also disagree that capitalism “requires certain freedoms of the individual in order to work”, unless the modifier “certain” is very narrowly construed. Capitalism can work even in a very unfree society; slaves can barter goods and services among themselves. Of course, I’m using the term “capitalism” here as a synonymous with “free enterprise”, so if someone has a different meaning of the term we could be arguing past each other.
Alisa, this might sound completely confused but I think of it as a sort of chicken and egg thing…
Capitalism is dependent on a philosophy that incorporates individual freedom, and a philosophy that incorporates individual freedom depends on “that which is termed capitalism”.
Its not a case of one coming first or one following the other, rather, I think that both are formed and extant from any meeting of minds.
Which all depends on the coming together of individuals.
I think capitalism is a subset of a very simple (and therefore incredibly complex) truth: That the bringing together of any two different things leads to more than a total of just two things.
Off course the alternative truth may be that I’m talking a load of **** 🙂
Laird, Gain thru anything other than contract isn’t free enterprise. Contract exists where any agreement is in operation regardless of whether contract is stated or not. Where no agreement is in operation what exists is a “might is right” type situation.
“Gain thru anything other than contract isn’t free enterprise.” I never said it was. What I said was that the objective of individuals is gain, not “gain through free enterprise”. Free enterprise is merely the most effective and efficient system for achieving and preserving that gain, which is why it does its best to spring up in human societies regardless of the circumstances.
And I don’t argue that a “contract” can be unstated; certainly that’s true. I merely take issue with your assertion that free enterprise (which we have heretofore been calling “capitalism”) requires either “a foundation of law” or individual freedom in which to operate. It flourishes best when both are present, but it requires neither. In fact, both are emergent properties of it: free enterprise tends to create the conditions in which individual freedom and the rule of law can arise, rather than the reverse. For the most part, individual freedom is a property of wealthy societies, and that wealth is an artifact of widespread and realtively free commercial enterprise.
Political goods are purchased differently. People tend to move to the countries that are the most free and flee the ones that are not. The currency of those trades is often in blood. Is that popular enough for you?
Last I checked no one was moving to England because of its fabulous health care system. They tend to come if England is freer or more prosperous (but I repeat myself) than where they live. That tyrants can gain power and that votes can be bought is hardly surprising. Socialism subsidizes itself in that fashion. That doesn’t make libertarianism unpopular… just hard to find.
Part of what animated the Tea Party so much was the realization that the US is essentially Helm’s Deep. Once it falls there is quite literally no where on earth a man can go to be free. At least not to an extent acceptable to a traditional American such as myself. The day of the blood sacrifice to rectify matters fast approacheth. But the price is so high it is worth it to put it off as long as possible.
As to rap, I think its rise (if you can call it that) has a lot to do with the fact that it requires no talent of any sort thus making it easy for the producers to plug in one artist for another and to reap the lion’s share of the profit as a result. That was certainly its appeal to record companies in the beginning. To the extent the “artist” has any worth it is personality based. Some of the “artists understand this and market themselves. In short, rap would be like Rock ‘n Roll if every rock artist were Gene Simmons.
I like that. I also like this:
, plus Laird’s original modifier to Hmm’s comment.
Now since Laird brought it up, and I myself have been pondering it for a long time: is there a clear definition of ‘capitalism’ on which at least the three or four of us here (just for starters) can agree?
I forgot to mention why I have a problem with the term ‘capitalism’: it is derived from the word ‘capital’, and to me it implies a relatively narrow subset of free enterprise, as opposed to free enterprise as such. Am I missing something?
Sorry Laird but the way I see it: Anywhere that the objective of individuals is gain, where the gain comes via agreement then capitalism/free enterprise is at play, and therefore rules and law are automatically in play subject to the understanding of the individuals involved (regardless of their philosophy). Any other type of gain is partisan and therefore not capitalism. Capitalism has agreement as its base requirement and that means Rules/Law.
I see capitalism as a default appendage to any meeting of individual minds. From that instance it can expand as a system and from there to an incorporated ideology dependent on the sophistication of the philosophies and the trade involved.
Totalitarianism depends on the breakdown of those rules… of the very idea (the basic thing learnt as a baby) of “me” and “mine”. Any creature that understands ‘me and mine’ has the basic rules from which capitalism springs/hangs. Yes – I would call it a foundational law. From that foundational law also comes ideas of good and bad, justice and fairness. I may be regarded as completely mad but I feel its fair to say that all trained (by human or pack) dogs have a form of proto-understanding of capitalism.
It may not be apparent, but – The crux of capitalism is the understanding of lawfully being an individual and therefore having individual ownership. Capitalism operates under any philosophy where the individual is lawfully recognised.
Alisa – oh dear- on thinking about it – My definition of capitalism requires at least three definitions:
“Governed, mutually agreed trade amongst individuals and corporations.”
and
“Mutually agreed trade amongst individuals.”
Both are capitalism – but the first one is the “ideology/philosophy”.
Then there is the totalitarian idea of capitalism..
“Hell”
In their narrowest definitions, these three ‘isms’ are the ways that stuff, whether it is generated by productive activity or is natural resources, is allocated.
Socialism is the distribution of stuff to the collectives purposes.
Consumerism is the distribution of stuff to the controllers’* purposes.
Capitalism is the distribution of stuff to the means of (future) production.
Capitalism may be engaged in by anybody who has control of ‘stuff’ (including socialists). Most free enterprisers engage in capitalism in order to support personal consumerism.
This usage more or less accommodates the definition of capitalism(Link) in Wikipedia.
* “Controllers” may be owners, administrators, thieves, etc.
Er, “definition of capital“.
Come to think of it I’ve been using “capitalism” and “free-market/enterprise/trade” as interchangeable.
I’ve been doing this on purpose for years to try and change the negative image of capitalism by making people actually think about what the word is they’re using (trouble is I tend to forget I do that, so apologies for any confusion)
Maybe its time for a new word for free-trade capitalism … something simple and straightforward:
“Mutualism” ?
“Reciprocalism” ? 🙂
What is wrong with “Free Enterprise”?
So you both agree that the term ‘capitalism’ is not fit for the job of describing what is usually meant by it (as Hmm just demonstrated)?
“Capitalism” as it is commonly used is Marx’s definition of it. As in Karl. Allowing your enemies to define you is always dangerous. “Free Enterprise” is a much more appropriate and accurate description of what most of us mean by “Capitalism“.
Great, I thought I was the only crazy one. Although I now do recall Paul Marks saying something similar.
Let me close out my participation with this:
There are some things which we can only describe but not define.
One can describe a disease, but hardly ever define it. One describes the conditions.
So it is I settled on capitalism as a condition.
60 years ago McGraw-Hill published Capitalism by David McCord Wright (an erstwhile student of Schumpeter and professor of mine in that era) as part of their Economics Handbook Series. But, like Marx, it only describes, never defines. Nevertheless, a social objective will never be found as part of an accurate description.
I’m a bit late back to the party, but I agree that “capitalism” is a troublesome word because, as Mid says, it’s largely been hijacked by Marx. Like Hmm, I tend to use it as synonymous with “free enterprise”, but on reflection I think that’s too sloppy. Even those who aren’t using a Marxist definition tend to conflate it with “corporatism”. When everybody has his own definition of a term it has lost its utility.
Well put, RRS.
Laird: hijacked by Marx or invented by him?
Alisa – more invented by Karl (one reason I do not like the term “capitalism”).
As for rap music…..
I do not like it.
But other people clearly do.
And if they want to spend their money on it – that is fine with me.
That is what believeing in freedom is about.
Believeing that other people have the right to act in ways that one would NOT act in oneself (such as spending money on Rap music – or singing “hate crime” songs, Scottish police state please note)- as long as they do not violate the bodies or goods of anyone else.
Very basic stuff – but often forgotten.
Laird:
On another subject; to-wit: Marx
There was Karl Marx and there is Marxism.
There seems to be a lot of miscomprehension of Marx’s own thinking, no doubt induced in part by subsequent Marxismists (which have replicated in many mutated strains).
For those who read Popper (V. 2 The Open Society and Its Enemies), there is a more cogent critique of Marx’s own thought.
But, perhaps more penetrating insights can be found in the 1939 work (now in its 4th Ed.) Karl Marx by that esteemed scholar of the History of Ideas, Isaiah Berlin.
Oddly, unknown to me at the time, the Berlin work came out in the year just after I had started reading Capital V. 1, just to learn what all the “impact” was about.
Widely derided determinism is now being re-examined in the light of gentics (and epigentics)studies and their implications.
Not until the late 90s – 97/98, the theme of hiphop has always revolved around gangsterism, and politics.The late 90s witnessed a paradigm shift in the theme of hiphop with the birth of capitalist-laden rap songs. Artists like puff daddy, and master p, the former, arguably the founder of capitalist rap, gave rappers the idea of breaking into corporate america, by producing songs that talks about making big time money and becoming enterpreneurs. This change in the theme of rap gave it a clean image in america, having a fanbase that cuts across races, hence making it alluring to coporate america.
Although, hiphop critics have always averred that capitalist rappers have lost sight of the objectives of the pioneers of the music genre :a mouthpicece for the colored peoples in america, tackling racial discrimination towards the colored race (BlackCNN). Nevertheless, capitalist rap has gone a longway in eradicating the widely held misperception and misconception that white america have of the black american community.
Awesome as always, keep up the great work!