“My kingdom for a comma, m’lord."
What you mean is, “Being able to eat, and to clothe your children….” Surely, eating your children has to be counted as almost always counter-revolutionary.
More seriously, though, and setting grammatical pedantry aside: The implied meaning here is absolutely not true. Conservatism and fascism each thrive, in their somewhat different ways, on providing for such basic needs within a constrained and constraining social, political and cultural order. Historically, revolutions are spurred by failure of a sitting regime to satisfy rising expectations; nothing to do with being able to "eat and clothe your children". The political meaning of improved access to basic resources depends entirely on whether your consciousness is moving towards a rejection of the existing order of things, or towards its preservation - and the answer to that question is shaped by a whole host of factors, only a few of which are susceptible to any kind of effect by would-be revolutionaries.