Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle (via r-i-o-t)
>implying revolution is bad
Because he’s comparing it to crime, or at least that’s my reading.
I’m not flaunt in Aristotle, but my recollection is that he was not a big believer in the righteousness of revolution. Maybe one of my readers more versed in the classics can correct me if I’m wrong and/or fill in the context for this quote.
Aristotle put forward the tricameral state controlled by the separated powers of a monarchy, an aristocracy and a direct democracy (though consider that he was referring to a style of Athenian democracy that meant men, over x age with x amount of property/money).
I’m fairly certain he wouldn’t have meant revolution in a positive fashion, in fact I’m curious as to where this quote was lifted from. Although what he’s saying is logical, he also had nothing bad to say about slavery and believed that people should be treated with respect to the proper place they were born into. So while he would’ve wanted a cohesive, productive state I’d need to do more reading to be able to conclusively make a statement as to whether or not he’d have been overly concerned about quelling unrest (although saying that he did have a quite progressive stance on the provision of state education … generally speaking I’m quite rusty, it’s been a while since I looked at Aristotle with much depth).
That isn’t to say we can’t use Aristotle. When he points out something which is true, we can use that, even if we don’t agree with his conclusions or his ethical attributions to it. Poverty does cause revolution and crime. That in itself doesn’t mean necessarily that revolution is bad (nor does it mean we must accept his definition of crime, or see crime in a bourgeois society as possessing a moral imperative when it’s an organic reaction to material conditions).