/lit/ - Literature

>>18374353
you will never be white

>>17822946
>frogshit
>/pol/shit
pottery

>>17750273
i take off the dusk cover in the morning and then put is back on at night

>Dedicated to you, the reader

I recall a section in Aristotle's politics where he limits the franchise of his ideal state to the heads of oikos' (the head of a family/productive land-holder) who do not themselves participate in labour (beyond management). He justifies this by stating one one hand that manual labour degrades character, and on the other because the citizens of the state require sufficient time to participate in public life. Authors like Locke and Mill makes similar points about property-ownership and franchise, but their justifications are grounded more in the relative stake of each member of society than their capacity to participate. Of course, public and political participation was more demanding in most Ancient Greek city-states than modern representative democracies, but i think the justification Aristotle makes is interesting. The issue popped up again as a minor point in 'Political Parties' by Michels. His piece was that a truly democratic party structure (mostly in reference to the early socialist parties of europe) is impossible because the average member of the party (the worker) spends most of his time labouring and has little left to dedicate to party/political demands; conversely, the party official spends all his time politicking and gains such a preponderance of political knowledge and connections that he and his ilk come to form an irreplaceable over-class of the party (among other reasons).
I was wondering if there are any other authors or books that talk about the connection between labour and political participation in a similar sense?