Classical regime mapping classifies by who rules and whether for common or private interest

Evidence

In order to explain how connections between regimes and contention work, we must think more generally and systematically about variations and transitions among political regimes. First, how shall we map regimes? Aristotle made it all seem vividly simple: “The true forms of government … are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions” (Barnes 1984, 2:2030). This reasoning led to a straightforward typology of all governmental forms: Thus if a single ruler (a monarch) promoted his own self-interest instead of the common good, he became a tyrant; if an aristocracy similarly used governmental power exclusively for its own advantage, the regime became an oligarchy; and if the majority in a constitutional government likewise sought only their own benefit without regard to the commonwealth, their regime became a democracy. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 74

Categorization

• XREF: Tilly is framing his alternative to the Aristotelian one-few-many scheme; the reader’s hunt for Tilly’s capacity-democracy matrix begins against this foil. — connects to: Tilly’s regime-contention model generalizes across states via adjusted mapping. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 663; Aristotle’s typology hinges each good regime on rule for the common interest — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 75; Regime form shapes which collective actors can act on their interests — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 84 (+3 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 74

Broader Connections

• Symmetric friendship and enmity served as ancient criteria for judging regimes #exemplifies (0.78) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 385
• Regime typology work splits between principled and historical approaches #qualifies (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 95
• Regime form shapes which collective actors can act on their interests #expands (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 84