Ms. Monopoly

[ysabetwordsmith]

A new version of Monopoly is coming out, Ms. Monopoly.  It's less gimmicky than I expected from the title.  One big change is that female players make 20% more than males, which has outraged many men.  (QUILTBAG folks can discuss how to handle diverse gender identities in the game.)  It also focuses on female inventors -- instead of real estate, players can invest in things invented by women.  One clear concrete benefit is that people will remember those things were invented by women just by being in the game, even if nobody remembers the name of the inventor.  Regrettably, the producer still falsely attributes the invention of the game itself to a man, when it was actually invented by Elizabeth Magie.  If the gender disparity gets more men interested in playing the Prosperity version, though, that would be good progress.

Comments

[ndrosen]

Oh, are you a Georgist? I am, and I’ve attended presentations about The Landlords’ Game/Monopoly. Thank you for the link.

You're welcome!

[ysabetwordsmith]

I'm glad you liked the link.

I am intrigued by the original Landlords' Game and especially Prosperity. I'm not sure I'd fit Georgist exactly -- or any other system exactly. I have observed that capitalism is not working well. I am darkly amused that all the dire things communists predicted about capitalism have come true, and vice versa, and none of them ever thought of sitting down to look at what each system does well or poorly to hash out something better. I tend to favor socialized needs and capitalized wants, though.

I believe that education should be free. I'm just waiting for the pustulent college bubble to burst like all the others have before.

One thing I really love about the early versions of Monopoly is the principle of a "natural opportunity for labor." That used to be the norm. If you wanted food, you grew it or gathered it or hunted it. If you needed craft materials you gathered those too. But now everything already "belongs" to someone else and the only legal way to get it is to pay them. Nobody's guaranteed work or resources of any kind, and it's a disaster. We need to restore that natural opportunity for labor, so people who want to work can just go DO that, not have to beg for a job from someone who frankly doesn't want to pay workers. It's not like we have a shortage of things that need doing!

That's actually a principle that still holds in some Native American tribes. They're not bound by most of the outside regulations. They can take whatever they can get from the (usually, but not always shitty) land they have. So it's something I write about in several different places. If you look at the Iron Horses thread you can see some examples.

There's another very subversive thing I like: the gift economy. In that, a person's wealth is measured by what they give away instead of what they hoard. From that perspective, America's "rich people" are poor, and kind of pathetic. 0_o A key principle is "the gift must move," meaning that you pass along things instead of keeping too much. It keeps the resources cycling so they don't pool in one place. The opposite of capitalism.

Re: You're welcome!

[(Anonymous)]

Have you read Daniel Quinns books _Ishmael_, _My Ishmael_, and _The Story of B_? He has some interesting and relevent points on modern capitalism and society.
Related: sometimes you hear people suggesting 'If they don't like it they can leave,' but this argument forgets that there isn't anywhere to run to anymore. If you don't like modern society you have 3 options
1. join another culture or subculture, if they will accept you
2. live off your society's rubbish or
3. Ho someplace so inhospitible that national goverments don't claim it.
#s 2 and 3 also involve giving up access to most of your social safety net.