Jay Z and the Telegraph 100 agree that what's best for them is best for all of us – and it's absolutely nauseating
|
Version 0 of 1. The rapper Jay Z and some of his uber-famous musician friends, including Daft Punk, Coldplay and Rihanna, are upset that “the fans” are now getting to hear their music without paying vastly inflated prices to own a physical object containing it. They are so upset, in fact, that they have banded together to promote Tidal, a premium streaming service that allows the fans to pay a bit more so that stars can be paid a bit more. Jay Z owns it. It helps the fans to be fairer to their idols, whose singularity and talent no amount of cash could possibly be large enough to represent. Though every little helps. I suspect that I speak for the entire planet when I wish every success to these warriors of economic justice. What new causes might these glamorous activists adopt, once they have achieved their goal of wringing as much money as possible out of all of their endeavours? None, of course. There is nothing on this earth more admirable than profit maximisation. Or wealth creation, as the profit maximisers prefer to call it. Related: Tidal: Jay Z, Madonna and Kanye make waves in the streaming business Things could be worse. Nauseating as it is to behold Madonna cocking one knee on a table as she signs up to Tidal, no one from the UK’s business community decided to strike a similar pose as they signed their letter to the Telegraph. We’re lucky, I suppose, that they didn’t use a tank to deliver their missive explaining that the nation must unite and vote Conservative to protect the corporate profits of their 100 companies. Like the pop stars, however, some of them did give interviews to the media explaining how their own self-interest is – by happy coincidence – also the collective interest of humanity. To themselves, they look like freedom fighters. To me, they look like dogs marking their territory, even if they don’t go as far as Madonna and actually lift their leg. What is it that makes people able to believe that what’s good for them is good for everyone, even though they refuse to countenance the opposite – that what’s good for everyone is good for them? I’m happy enough to accept that socialism is impossibly idealistic because humans aren’t that keen on sharing. But I’m not happy with the idea that not being keen on sharing has to be lauded and nurtured as a wondrous virtue. And yet, whether from pop stars or business leaders, that is the message: mess with our private prosperity and you mess with everyone’s collective prosperity. What they really mean is: play by our rules or we’ll take the ball away. In pop stars, the narcissism is almost endearing, because all they’re supplying is entertainment, and their self-importance is quite funny. But from businesspeople, whose argument seems to be that they won’t keep people in food, clothes and shelter unless it’s worth their while, the double standard is almost sinister. Who are these people? If they’re only in it for the money, and see nothing wrong with that, then they are welcome to defend their position. What irks is their idea of themselves as selfless people working only for the prosperity and well-being of others, yet quite unable to do so unless they wrestle their instinct for philanthropy to the ground and set about the sad task of looking out for number one fantastically well. Related: The Tory 100: captains of industry, party donors (and a few tax avoiders) How do the self-interested wealthy and successful get away with it? I can only surmise that they get away with it because human beings find it more enjoyable to empathise with, say, a pop star than with, say, a skint teenager. From that precept, it’s easy to understand how, if one were Beyoncé, and everyone was listening to one’s songs for free, one might feel exploited. It’s easy to understand how, if one had worked to build up a profitable business, and the taxman was taking it all away, one might feel demotivated. It’s one of the interesting psychological details of an aspirational society. People are encouraged to think positively about success and about how much they’d like it, and think negatively about a lack of success and about how challenging and self-enforcing it might be. But the truth is that not everyone is capable of becoming a pop star or a captain of industry. An aspirational society likes to tell us that we are all capable of such things, and that those who achieve them are just lucky (often in the circumstances of their birth). That may sound like a positive and meritocratic philosophy. But actually, it isn’t that healthy. People no longer seem to see success as a privilege and a responsibility in itself. They want all the material trappings that advertise their status, all the wealth that tells them how successful they are. Why not? If it wasn’t them, it would be somebody else. They’re behaving in the way that anyone in their position would behave. Everyone is like them. So they can speak for everyone. Or so they think. Pop stars think that their fans are clamouring to pay more to hear their music. Captains of industry think voters will see that more austerity is worthwhile if it means corporation tax will stay low. Somehow, society’s winners have come to see themselves as delicate flowers that everyone must carefully tend, when really it’s their garden – and they’ve let it go to seed. |