Richard D. Wolff

By not accepting this principle, don't we risk undermining the whole platform of socialism - in that a double standard would be created in which money effects behavior and not behavior effecting wealth? Given what we know from the social and cognitive sciences that says ones environment has a permanent, lasting effect on ones disposition and behavior, even after the change of circumstances, wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that poverty does in fact leave a mark upon the individual and influence and guide their future actions, potentially reinforcing their situation? Besides modern sources, ancient works like Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, based on his understanding of character and personality formation, also assumes a cyclical dynamic between the decisions one makes and one's character, but all predicated under the circumstances and "lot" one first finds themselves in. Instead of poverty being framed as a "front end problem", where simply throwing money resolves the issue, shouldn't we see it as also a "back-end" issue, where the tradagies the poor have been subjected to created long term emotional and mental hardships that throwing money at them can not fix?