Historical Materialism 101.2

"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime."
-Aristotle, from "Politics", Book II

This is a well known, well liked, and heavily shared quote from Aristotle in his 2nd major work on political economy.  It's liked primarily because of its simplicity and its use of formal logic to convey this simplicity in a manner that most people can understand quickly, without re-reading.  It is a general statement about why people revolt against conditions, and why people engage in what the State deems as 'criminal behavior'.  Without carefully considering the logic behind the message however, it is easy to fall victim to Aristotelian "oversimplifications", as some philosophers have called them, with respect to the elements of history, causality, and creation.

Let's consider Aristotle's proposition here combined with his typical "formal" logic. It is necessary to approach Aristotle's conclusion beginning with his own logic, and then to show the oversimplification made which fails to express the full story.

Poverty, according to Aristotelian logic is one definite thing and cannot be anything else.  (A = A).  Simultaneously, Poverty is incapable of being two things at once (it cannot be poverty and non-poverty; Any X can only be A or non-A, but not both).  The same must be concluded of the other terms used; 'parent', 'revolution', and 'crime'. Formal logic tells us that these categories are and have always been; the reasoning resulting from Platonic idealism:  Their 'existence', so-to-speak, derives from our thinking about them.  We observed their existence and gave them meaning; a meaning whose existence in our own minds is greater than the physical existence of the 'things' in question.

If this is true, according to Aristotle, then the word 'parent' most certainly fits as an application, or a bridge, between isolated categories:  The words 'poverty', 'parent', 'revolution', and 'crime' all exist as separated, static categories that are fundamentally "unchanging" according to Aristotle.  Revolution is revolution; crime is crime, and poverty is poverty.  The linkage between these is the 'parent', which also sits outside the categories of all other terms used.

Poverty is the 'parent' in the sense that it 'creates' revolution and crime.  The concept of 'creation' here is key for Aristotelian logic.  The creation of these two sub-components, 'revolution' and 'crime', appears to happen out of nothingness.  The key word that Aristotle does NOT use, and would never use, is 'cause'. 'Poverty', according to Aristotle, did not CAUSE 'revolution' and 'crime', it CREATES it; just like your parents created you, and like how the Gods created man.

The historical materialist however has history as the basis of causality.  For the dialectician, there is no such thing as 'unchanging forms' and 'static categories' that retain absolute meanings and references.

Consider the following:  'Poverty' CAUSES 'revolution' and 'crime'.  This sentence is wholly different from Aristotle's in that there is a timeline; a history.  We begin at one point (A= Poverty), and we move into another point (B=Revolution and crime); the shift made possible not by a single instant of creation, but rather through a process of causality; of progress; of development.

In this sense, 'Poverty' is not static, unchanging, uniform.  Rather, 'Poverty' is something that naturally transitions (as a material state of existence) into a new form of existence; that being a 'revolutionary' and a 'crime-ridden' existence.  The previously-suggested 'unmoving' categories of 'poverty', 'revolution' and 'crime' are suddenly shown to have a direct connection with one another...and there is no need for a third static-party, the 'parent', to act as the 'creator' of something out of nothing.  Rather, poverty does not create anything...it causes forces already in motion to act upon one another to shift into a new condition:  that of revolution and/or crime. Hope you enjoyed 101.2.  More to come.