In addition to his works on ethics, which address the individual, Aristotle addressed the city in his work titled ''Politics (Aristotle)''. Aristotle considered the city to be a natural community. Moreover, he considered the city to be prior in importance to the family which in turn is prior to the individual, "for the whole must of necessity be prior to the part" - wikipedia 
Aristotle's classifications of political constitutions - wikimedia
Clearly Aristotle was a bit of a royalist, though I am quite sure his queen was a man. We have to admire the clarity of his boxes of classification. It gives us a great platform with which to begin a debate.
The boxes above would indicate by that logic of sublimated self-interest that the author was drawn to (bureaucracy (rules and law) and judged himself to be deserving of membership in an elite (aristocracy or royalty).
He also had an issue with money unless in moderation. This clearly was a reasonable man, sleepwalking into trouble.
# On money
A little research supports his views on money, trade and property:
> He criticizes income based upon trade and upon interest, saying that those who become avaricious do so because they forget that money merely symbolizes wealth without being wealth and "contrary to nature" on interest because it increases by itself not through exchange - wikipedia
# City as neighbourhood The common modern understanding of a political community as a modern state is quite different from Aristotle's understanding. Although he was aware of the existence and potential of larger empires, the natural community according to Aristotle was the city (polis) which functions as a political "community" or "partnership" (''koinōnia'').
The aim of the city is not just to avoid injustice or for economic stability, but rather to allow at least some citizens the possibility to live a good life, and to perform beautiful acts: > The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together.
This is distinguished from modern approaches, beginning with social contract theory, according to which individuals leave the state of nature because of "fear of violent death" or its "inconveniences."
In ''Protrepticus (Aristotle)'', the character 'Aristotle' states: > For we all agree that the most excellent man should rule, i.e., the supreme by nature, and that the law rules and alone is authoritative; but the law is a kind of intelligence, i.e. a discourse based on intelligence. > And again, what standard do we have, what criterion of good things, that is more precise than the intelligent man? For all that this man will choose, if the choice is based on his knowledge, are good things and their contraries are bad. > And since everybody chooses most of all what conforms to their own proper dispositions (a just man choosing to live justly, a man with bravery to live bravely, likewise a self-controlled man to live with self-control), it is clear that the intelligent man will choose most of all to be intelligent; for this is the function of that capacity. > Hence it's evident that, according to the most authoritative judgment, intelligence is supreme among goods.
Well he would say that wouldn't he. I doubt that a monk, or a mother or an athlete would identify as strongly.
# Categorisation
As befits his role as synthesiser in chief, we can categorise political systems according to Aristotle into many coloured boxes:
Alternative diagram illustrating the classification of constitutions by Aristotle - wikimedia
# See also - Aristotle - Don't be Square