“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty." (Aristotle) Do you agree?

Poverty is a state if people’s income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to exclude them from having an acceptable standard of living. As a result of inadequate income and resources, people may be excluded and marginalized from participating in activities which are considered the norm for other people in the modern globalizing society of today. I agree to Aristotle’s quote to a small extent as revolution and crime are not the only consequences of poverty. Furthermore, these issues are somehow interconnected.

Revolution and crime can result due to the actions of governments that led to the poverty of many. The government may not deliver their promises to its people due to it being corrupted. Hence, when the citizens find that their message is not being brought across to the upper levels, they take their own actions. Furthermore, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” This gave people the incentive to do evil.

Just like the people of Russia resented the autocracy of Tsar Nicholas II and his corrupt government. He was out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the Russians. Moreover, there were few opportunities for fair advancement of peasants and industrial workers. Economically, widespread inflation and food shortages in Russia contributed to the revolution. This further strengthened Russia's view of Nicholas II as weak and unfit to rule. Ultimately, these factors, coupled with the development of revolutionary ideas and movements, like the peaceful march which led to the 1905 Bloody Sunday massacre, led to the Russian Revolution in 1917.

However, not only does poverty leads to revolution and crime, greed, desire and ignorance contribute. An aspect of what greed and desire can make one do is corruption which is mentioned in the example above of the Tsar. Corporate crime, like evasion of taxes, fraud, ignoring environmental regulations, violating labour rights, results in United States. In the US, Benjamin Barber, professor of Political Philosophy estimates that corporate crime costs the country about $200 billion a year. Events after September 11, 2001, have highlighted massive corporate failures and controversies all the way up to the President. In the New York Times, July 29, 2002, Barber highlights that even in the most freest of societies, the United States, corporate influences have been so strong as to undermine fundamental democratic principles. This is shown here, “But business malfeasance ... arises from a failure of the instruments of democracy, which have been weakened by three decades of market fundamentalism, privatization ideology and resentment of government.... The truth is that runaway capitalists, environmental know-nothings, irresponsible accountants, amoral drug runners and antimodern terrorists all flourish because we have diminished the power of the public sphere. By privatizing government functions and refusing to help create democratic institutions of global governance, America has relinquished its authority to control these forces.”

No doubt that poverty plays a role in causing revolution and crime; we should not disregard the fact that the situation today is a vicious cycle. For instance, older Singaporeans might find it difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of Singaporeans and level with the nation’s economy status. Even though there is meritocracy in Singapore, they find it hard to excel due to their low literacy level as well as the decrease in their capability of learning new knowledge. Inevitably, they might find it unfair because of unequal job opportunities. There are an increasing number of poor people who are missing out on the benefits of economy growth. Take for example, cleaners who can range from thirty-five to sixty years old, their incomes are not proportional to the increase in the nation’s income. A monthly income of $550 can even fall to a $400 in Singapore. Despite Singapore’s booming economy, why do these circumstances keep on surfacing?

Sometimes, desperation can make one do the unthinkable. In a feat to overthrow the government so that the people themselves can rule the country and decide what and how much they can possess, crime and revolution results, making the country’s economy fall due to instability which turns off foreign investors and tourists – the two key engine towers of Singapore’s booming industries. Thus, this in turn leads to poverty. This vicious cycle is never-ending. In addition, ghettos or places where crime thrives are ‘ghost towns’ to foreigners. For example, crime rates are soaringly high in Middle-Eastern countries like Pakistan and Iraq. Foreign investors and visitors would be discouraged to visit due to the fear of danger. In this way, these countries suffer economically, leading to escalating poverty.

Poverty is explained by individual circumstances or characteristics of poor people. Some examples are: amount of education, skill; health, handicaps, age; work orientation, time horizon (the interval during which an investment program is to be completed); discrimination, together with race, sex, etc. Generally, there is no correct explanation of poverty. It is determined by case and generic effect. For instance, poverty is explained by general, economy-wide problems, such as inadequate employment opportunities, inadequate overall demand (macro problems, macro policy), low national income (Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product) usually in Economically Less Developed Countries. I would say that poverty is caused by one set of forces (general, economy-wide problems) but distributed according to the individuals.

In the final analysis, it would do poverty a real injustice if it were to be accused of being the sole factor of causing revolution and crime. Perhaps, shouldn’t people of today’s globalizing world take a step back and reflect on whether they themselves are the real culprit of this created mess?