Monopoly, The Game

[Jerry Story]

The game of monopoly looks to me like a gross misrepresentation of capitalism. Here is a website that agrees with me:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1451

Is there a game that resembles monopoly except for one major difference, more correct representation of capitalism?

If not, how would you go about inventing such a game? If you take this question seriously, this is an opportunity for you to be creative.

I know there is a game called anti-monopoly, but that is just another variation on the same theme, still a false representation of capitalism.

[danielshrugged]

That's a very interesting article. I agree with some parts of the article and strongly object to others.

Throughout the article, I wanted to scream, "Monopoly is a GAME!" Within the sphere of games, there are some called simulation games. These games, which include SimCity and flight simulators, are supposed to be true to life. We can rightly criticize a flight simulator if, say, the plane cannot run out of fuel. Monopoly, however, is NOT marketed as a capitalism simulator. Like any board game, the player is given a list of rules and is told to try to win. Of course people in the real world don't acquire property by rolling dice! Neither the makers nor the players of Monopoly think that's the case (excluding a few maniacs, perhaps). But in the Monopoly universe, that's how things work.

I have an interesting story that relates to this issue. There is another board game called Diplomacy. Each player starts out with a country and a few armies/navies. Then he has to expand by using his military to take over surrounding territories. Between each turn, players "negotiate" with each other. For instance, they can promise another player protection in exchange for a territory, or they can agree to make a combined attack on another player. The rule book even encourages lying. For instance, after taking another's terrority in exhange for a promise of protection, you might decide to use that new territory to attack the player who gave it to you.

For a while, I was skeptical about the game. It would be horrible, obviously, as a model of politics. And it's not even good as a model for military strategists. For instance, it takes no account of the fact that a capitalistic country has an advantage over a communist country. It treats battles, also, as matters of numbers. The more armies you have, the better. It ignores the need to have well-trained and motivated soldiers.

But the game is NOT a simulation. It's an exercise in planning and cunning, that's all. Given the game's rules, try to conquer the world. That's why I'm proud to say that I have played the game on a few occassions. And on one occassion, I deceived another player to such a degree that he was mad at me for weeks--I took half of his country in just a couple of turns by means of just one lie.

(Given that this is an Objectivist forum, I should probably explain that I do not consider that lie immoral. Lying is immoral because it is anti-mind in the real world. That game was not the real world.)

-------------------

All that said, I would obviously applaud any game that succesfully combined the fun and the planning of a Monopoly-like board game with realism. (I'm tempted to draw an analogy, though there might be holes in it, to literature. Games with unrealistic rules are like sci-fi or fantasy novels. My lack of belief in wormholes doesn't necessarily dilute my enjoyment of a book that makes use of them.)

However, I wonder how successfully this could be done. If one tries to be too realistic, one might lose the simplicity of Monopoly. The trick is to incorporate the realism without turning it into either a simulation or capitalistic propaganda. How that trick would be accomplished, I have no idea.

[nimble]

I dont really have time to read the article, but like someone stated, IT IS A GAME! Its not like that is the capitalist manifesto. Also, it actually does represent a lot of capitalist philosophy. Everyone starts out equal. Everyone has equal opportunities to create an empire of real estate. One aspect that you maybe ignoring is that monopoly only covers one field of a capitalist economy: real estate. And yes monopolies are POSSIBLE not probable in the realm of real estate, since there is only a limited amount of land. But i would say "ITS A GAME" Let it rest. hahaha kinda interesting topic though.

[Betsy]

Throughout the article, I wanted to scream, "Monopoly is a GAME!"

It's also a game a lot of Objectivists enjoyed playing in the Old NBI days on Saturday nights, at conferences, and at Southern California Objectivist Association picnics.

Things really get exciting when we played "Laissez Faire" style. That allows any player to make any "contract" with another player that is mutually agreeable. This has led to exchanges of property, free landings, partnerships, and even the formation of "corporations." Contracts were enforced by the banker and contracts sometimes got so complicated we needed to write them down. It's a good thing some of the players were lawyers.

[nimble]

yea my friends and I play our own variations as well. We 4 players who held loads of cash, and were loaning companies, and they had to compete for our business, as we acquired properties or debts they would loan us money to pay for buildings and debts for payment with interest later. And so it created a dual game. One where the actual players were playing to win. and one where the investors were seeing who could earn the best profits.

[walsh]

Wow. 'Laissez Faire' style is great. I hadn't even thought of that option when I've played the game before. I now am itching to play.

[fifi]

Throughout the article, I wanted to scream, "Monopoly is a GAME!"

Thank you... that needed to be said.