6 ms·
Did you read the WP article? It seems the original game had 2 sets of rules: > The set had rules for two different games, anti-monopolist and a monopolist. The
by cies 6y ago
Did you read the WP article? It seems the original game had 2 sets of rules:
> The set had rules for two different games, anti-monopolist and a monopolist. The anti-monopolist rules reward all during wealth creation while the monopolist rules had the goal of forming monopolies and forcing opponents out of the game.[3] A win in the anti-monopolist or Single Tax version (later called "Prosperity"), was when the player having the lowest monetary amount has doubled his original stake.
So one rules similar to modern day Monopoly. And one that teach us the virtues of "social policies". (can I say socialism here without being down voted to hell?)
And there was a clear intend to teach its players about "unfairness":
> The game was created to be a "practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences". She based the game on the economic principles of Georgism, a system proposed by Henry George, with the object of demonstrating how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants. She knew that some people could find it hard to understand why this happened and what might be done about it, and she thought that if Georgist ideas were put into the concrete form of a game, they might be easier to demonstrate. Magie also hoped that when played by children the game would provoke their natural suspicion of unfairness, and that they might carry this awareness into adulthood.
I've learned something today!
Also, I'm quite a fan of Georgism (tax bad behavior so heavy it disappears). For instance, I think we should georgize pollution and wealth hoarding.
- gmueckl 6y agoI don't have a good understanding, but is it actually socialist when it is about increasing personal wealth at the core? It does rather sound like a constrained version of capitalism to me.
- cies 6y agoSocialism tries in increase wealth of individuals, just like capitalism does. The difference is that different flavours of socialism want to increase it across the board, where capitalism wants an individuals wealth to be very well protected, especially when the numbers get high, so that wealth may accumulate in few. I find it fascinating that the original Monopoly game was desgined to teach us the difference and how Georgism (taxing bad behavior) may be used by "the people/democracy" to ensure capitalism is not the outcome. Also very telling that the game was thn ripped off, and got popular as Monopoly, where the only set of rules are the capitalistic ones.
- elzbardico 6y agoLol, the Soviet Kid’s encyclopedia definition of capitalism and socialism. You Americans are so deliciously naive.
- cies 6y agoPlease explain. I dont get the joke. I'm not a USer btw.
- baq 6y agomaybe start from the names: socialism tries to put society first, capitalism tries to put capital first. western europe democracies try to be 'social capitalism', with mixed results, but maybe not as disastrous and scary as some folks here would like them to be.
- cies 6y agoCapitalism puts capital first, sure, but it is necessary to say it specifically puts person-owned capital first. Economically the USSR had capital too, but it was mostly owned collectively (by the state). Hence I define the two in terms of the people that actually own stuff.
- baq 6y agofair points, but one could argue that USSR wasn't necessarily a socialist state. it was totalitarian, which somehow gets more confused with socialist the further west you go and ask.
- cies 6y ago> USSR wasn't necessarily a socialist state it wasn't communist (defined as: no money, no classes, no state). it was commi thoug
- ethanbond 6y agoGeorgism is extremely capitalist, and it is not “tax bad behavior.” Georgism can be summarized as such: A person is entitled to exactly what he or she produces. That’s the purest capitalism I’ve ever heard of. The scent of socialism you get is due to the examination that George provides of “exactly what he or she produces.” Laborers are therefore entitled to all of their wages. Capitalists, who earn money by deploying capital (which is actually stored up labor) are entitled to all of their returns. Landlords, however, earn money by charging for access to something they did not produce - either to the “productive powers of nature” such as rivers, mines, farmable land, or to value created by the community surrounding a plot of land (such as education, cultural amenities, public transit, or private employment opportunities). It’s really not socialist at all. It’s idealized capitalism.
- DaedPsyker 6y agoWell to be honest there is different versions of socialism with different meanings. Some do put personal wealth as more important, or at least indirectly. If it is part of the market socialism side then wealth is used the same way to promote self-interest. In market socialism the the difference from capitalism is stricter controls on business ownership (i.e. businesses must be coops or something along those lines).
- midasuni 6y agoOP was talking about monopoly, which never had a more egalitarian mode.