Chapter 1

Since then we propose to inquire what civil society is of all others best for those who have it in their power to live entirely as they wish, it is necessary to examine into the polity of those states which are allowed to be well governed; and if there should be any others which some persons have described, and which appear properly regulated, to note what is right and useful in them; and when we point out wherein they have failed, let not this be imputed to an affectation of wisdom, for it is because there are great defects in all those which are already established, that I have been induced to undertake this work. We will begin with that part of the subject which naturally presents itself first to our consideration. The members of every state must of necessity have all things in common, or some things common, and not others, or nothing at all common. To have nothing in common is evidently impossible, for society itself is one species of [1261a] community; and the first thing necessary thereunto is a common place of habitation, namely the city, which must be one, and this every citizen must have a share in. But in a government which is to be well founded, will it be best to admit of a community in everything which is capable thereof, or only in some particulars, but in others not? for it is possible that the citizens may have their wives, and children, and goods in common, as in Plato's Commonwealth; for in that Socrates affirms that all these particulars ought to be so. Which then shall we prefer? the custom which is already established, or the laws which are proposed in that treatise?

We aim to discover the best political society for people who can live entirely as they wish. We must therefore examine the constitutions of states generally considered well governed. We must also consider any other constitutions people have described, if those constitutions seem well organized. We should note what is right and useful in them. When we point out their failures, do not take our criticism as an attempt to appear wise. I undertook this work because all existing constitutions have serious defects. We will begin with the question that naturally comes first. The members of every state must share everything, share some things but not others, or share nothing at all. Sharing nothing is clearly impossible, because society itself is a kind of [1261a] community. The first requirement for society is a shared place to live, namely the city. The city must be one, and every citizen must have a share in it. But in a well-founded state, is it best to share everything that can be shared? Or should citizens share only some things and not others? Citizens could share their wives, children, and property, as in Plato's Commonwealth. In that work, Socrates says that all these things should be shared. Which should we prefer, then: established practice or the laws proposed in that work?