The statement is trying to find a connection between Capitalism and the working-class
part of folk. It's an apologist statement.

Stage 1. The Individual mentioned is a myth. The only way an individual can function
in an economy is through interaction with others and laws are made to determine the misnomer called the "Free Market". Laws govern the market and it is not "free".

Stage 2. What needs to be considered here is that the boss does not create the job.
The job is a necessity that is self-evident in any business. It's something that needs to be done. The worker fulfills the role. Therefore job "creation" is a myth.

Stage 3. The stockholder is never represented by the working-class who relinquishes his role as a worker to the degree that he holds the stock. He/she becomes a Capitalist.
These people are never represented in folk music because they are not working-class.
They may try to write songs that favor their status but are unsuccessful because they do not reflect working-class values such as the role of the worker in society that is exploited by some corporations. You will generally historically find songs that are anti-corporate
in their sentiment as a result.

The Entity created in the eyes of the law as a corporation as person was predicated on an error, C. Bankroft Davis, the clerk in the case of Santa Rosa Vrs. the Railroad which established that the corporation should be thought of as a "person". Actually, this was never conclusive in this case. The clerk made an assumption in the writing of the case description which has been upheld by Supreme Courts ever since. In no way is the corporation a "person" as it claims and the idea of this hid behind the Amendment
banning slavery.

Many recording companies that offer folk music are sole proprietors and not licensed corporations. A corporation is a convenience for business (tax breaks) and is not always a negative entity. Today, however, the corporation has overstepped its legal and moral authority to cheat the taxpayer. (Bear-Stearns, Enron, etc). The only folk music you will find is against the "companies" that do the damage.

It does not follow that corporate control is a family value. The bible states an authoritarian claim that is often used as a pretext for protecting corporations.

A fan of folk music is not necessarily just a "consumer". Folk music per se is not
a corporation or if it becomes a business, then it is associated with show business.
Even if it has this association, it does not define the label "folk music" which is often
outside the show business model.

The rules governing "show business" regardless of rock and roll or pop music has its own set of values but do not necessarily pertain to folk music. The mother who lulls the baby to sleep with a lullaby is singing a folk song often. This has nothing to do with "consumerism".

Control enters the picture when show business requires that the label "folk music" serves its purpose.

It is important to make these distinctions between the "consumerism" of music and the nature of folk music in its entirety.

The beautiful thing about Mudcat is that it is concerned not with just the show biz aspects of what is called folk music, but that it is interested in the entire nature of the music in itself.

A lot of statements pass through this place and some have merit but most have at least the enthusiasm for the subject. I see folk music as a face-value label, the music sung by people who don't consume it but sing and play it because it is our heritage and through it, we gain an identity as who we are as people and how we are tied to our country historically. I find that when I teach folk music to people, consumerism is the last thing on their minds. They want the connection.

Frank Hamilton