Who's Up for Some Stalinist Monopoly?

One advantage of ChartaCourse is that you really can make it your own.  You can fill it with your own idiosyncratic, eccentric materials.  We're professors, after all -- we should own our eccentricities!

So, with a special shout out to Property and Estates & Trusts Profs: Here's a really fun and useful means of teaching about the power of different conceptions of the right to exclude, and of inheritance laws, to shape society.

I've created 4 new set of rules for the board game Monopoly, each reflecting a different economic and legal structure.  I embed the rules within my ChartaCourse chart, and find volunteers to bring in Monopoly boards.  Student are randomly assigned to one of the 4 games, and are randomly assigned to roles within them. Then we play.  But -- critically -- we also record the results with regard to:

• the amount of economic activity within the game, and
• the economic mobility of the players.  

1.  Capitalist Monopoly

Students are often surprised when I  say that under its normal rules, Monopoly is a rigidly socialist game.  After all, it's all about free enterprise, isn't it?  

No.  Any politician who proposed a law that would require all people to (1) begin their lives with exactly equal resources, and (2) be paid equal wages throughout their lives, would make Bernie Sanders look like Ayn Rand.  But those are the normal rules of Monopoly.

So, I created rules for capitalist monopoly, in which the players start the game in very different economic circumstances, and some players are able to capture part of the labor-value of others.  Below are the rules:

 (Click image to expand)

Naturally, there is a little grumbling by the person who is 'born' as player E, and a little crowing by the person 'born' as player A -- but that's hardly unexpected or unrealistic.

The capitalist game usually devolves into two separate games.  The poor have nothing the rich want, and the rich have nothing the poor can afford.  Therefore, they do not trade with each other.  The rich players trade with each other, the poor trade with each other.  

The poor quickly exhaust the resources they have on hand, and their survival depends upon their ability to accumulate and manage increasing amounts of debt, usually at the forebearance of the rich, who want them alive because they  have captured some of the value of their labor.

There is economic mobility among the rich and the poor, so that Player B may end with more resources than Player A, and Player E may end with more resources than Player D.  But so far, no Player D or E has finished the game better off than a Player A or Player B.  Player C, by contrast can have significant mobility up or down, depending on skillful play and the luck of the die. 

 

2.  Western European-style Democratic Socialist Monopoly

The idea here is that resources are divided slightly more evenly than under a more capitalist economy.  

(Click image to expand)

This game always has the highest level of economic activity, as measured by properties bought, sold or traded, and houses or hotels built.  Although there is significant disparity between the starting resources of the parties, most of the players will interact and transact with each other, except that Players A and E will often not transact with each other.  Because of this, these games often are the liveliest ones in the room.

There is limited economic mobility among the players.  Still, it is rare that a player will move up or down by more than 2 positions. 

 

3. Pre-1989 Eastern European Socialist Monopoly

Resources are divided very evenly, but the heavy hand of the state sharply reduces the utility of individual initiative and removes much of the fun and energy of the game.

(Click image to expand)

This game features the largest amount relative economic mobility between the players, so that occasionally even Player E will end up with more resources than Player A.  However, the ending absolute differences among player resources are usually very small.  Moreover, as a group, the players usually end up with less money than they started with.  

The players usually discover that too much economic activity is counter-productive, since they usually lose more than they make by having a monopoly.  Therefore, while economic mobility is the highest in this game, economic activity is usually the second lowest.  In addition, as a subjective matter  the students seem to have the least fun with this game.

And finally, just for the grim humor of it . . . 

 

4. Stalinist Monopoly

Last time I played this with my students, I was the first person executed.

 

(Click image to expand)

This game is a lot of macabre fun.  The players soon discover the best course is to avoid economic activity and, as their resources dwindle, they often find an advantage to being imprisoned, since they don't have to pay rent or fear 'disappearing.'  The 'disappeared' rules are meant to mimic the paranoia of the Stalinist state -- if you show up in places of high power more than once, or display unusual luck, you are eliminated.  The only fun is this game is watching each other try to avoid death. 

I've played this one with family.  The good news is that unlike most Monopoly games, this one is usually over well within 2 hours.

What lessons are taught from all of this?

For me, there are several:

1. Distribution of resources is in part a product of the strength of the right to exclude under various systems.

2.  The rules of the capitalist game have strong implications for debates about the estate tax.  When some players start the game with more resources than others could hope to accumulate in several lifetimes, the relative economic mobility of the players is extremely limited.

3. The fact that some players amass resources by capturing the value of others' labor, and that the advantage obtained is carried forward into following generations, is a great launching point for a discussion about slavery reparations.

4.  When wealth is distributed wildly unevenly, in part because a strong right to exclude prevents redistribution, economic activity can actually decrease.  That may be why, for example, we associate less economic activity with a society dominated by a landed gentry.  Moreover, what looks like one game can actually divide into very separate games -- picture the completely separate worlds of landed gentry and ordinary laborers in early 20th century Britain, for example, or the separate worlds of Wall St. bankers and the homeless. 

5.  There is joy and fun in enterprise that doesn't really exist when free markets are squashed.

6.  Relative economic mobility, promoted by a weakened right to exclude, can mean lower absolute economic mobility, so that what appears to be an improvement for the poor may actually be a worsening of conditions for everyone.  In many ways, happiness in playing the game seems less about relative economic mobility than about a robust opportunity to participate in the economic system.

7.  Don't mess with Stalin.

Comments

[James Grimmelmann]

These Monopoly variants have nothing to say about the right to exclude. You left the basic framework of Monopoly in place: players who trespass on each others' properties are required to pay liability-rule compensation. That's exactly the same in all four variations. You've modified the rules that deal with the _allocation_ of property rights within society, but not the rules that deal with _exclusion_.

[Anon E. Anon]

Sounds like a great way to proselytize about your political views while claiming that the game is about Trust and Estates.

[Mark Edwards]

Anon - I couldn't agree less.

[Rugby]

Monopoly or watching rugby?

[anon]

Anon E. Anon

Couldn't agree more. This isn't teaching Property or Trusts and Estates. To offer this as a teaching tool to profs who teach these subjects is sort of bizarre!

This is a transparent attempt to teach an oversimplified, skewed and shallow version of political theory. Of course, that's about all we can expect when we hear about political theory in politics (we rarely do, so most are entirely ignorant or have little information, as demonstrated by these "rules" of the games).

Perhaps all this would be perfectly ok in the political arena. (Remember, the Chair of the DNC couldn't identify the difference between a socialist and a democrat!) At least it might spark a discussion about the real issues and a deeper, more accurate analysis.

But, in connection with courses in Property and Trusts and Estates? Who's kidding who here? Is this a joke?

What's next? The Marxist view of Civil Procedure?

Fun is fun, but please.

[anon]

Mark apparently agrees with Anon E. Anon as well!

[Dave Garrow]

Al, This really illustrates (as have many other things recently) why anonymous comments need to be eliminated......

[Mark Edwards]

Hi James -- I disagree in this sense -- the right to exclude is not limited to physical trespass. It also includes the right to prevent the state from redistributing resources from some private hands to others. In these games, the distribution of resources varies considerably, and in ways that the law would not allow under the alternative systems of government. The inability of a private party to prevent that indicates a weak right to exclude; the ability of a private party to enjoy disproportionate resources indicates a strong right to exclude.

[Jimbino]

We need a game with socialist rules of the USSA, where singles and the childfree are taxed to support the breeding and mis-education of the breeders' brood.

[Derek Tokaz]

Don't the Western European Socialist countries have lower inheritance tax rates than the US?

Also, players in Monopoly do not all earn the same wage. The amount for passing Go remains even, but players vary in how quickly they make it around the board. If in real life everyone earned $10, but some earned it every hour while others earned it every fifteen minutes, we'd hardly call that an equal wage.

[Mark Edwards]

But how quickly one makes it around the board is a product of luck, not skill, and like Hasbro I'm willing to assume that over time luck is pretty evenly distributed.

[anon]

" Al, This really illustrates (as have many other things recently) why anonymous comments need to be eliminated......"

Yes, eliminated. Apparently, this commenter prefers the Stalinist version of the game.

Not unusual, unfortunately.

[Derek Tokaz]

Mark,

Whether it's due to luck or skill, it still goes against the claim that the players are "paid equal wages throughout their lives."

Also, I haven't heard Hasbro say anything about the even distribution of luck in its games (nor do I thin Daviau has discussed it on the roundtable podcast), but if you've seen them comment on this mechanic please share.

You're probably thinking about the law of large numbers, but that's not how luck works in Monopoly. Some people will in fact move around the board much faster. They'll roll doubles or get a beneficial Chance card. Others will land in jail and suffer a significant setback. Also, what constitutes a lucky result changes throughout the game. Landing on a space first is lucky. The next person to land on it is unlucky. Moving fast and rolling doubles early is lucky, while rolling doubles late in the game gives you a greater chance to land on an opponent's property -- landing in jail at the end is extremely fortunate. So, even if the rolls evened out over a game (and they don't; it takes many games for that to happen), players would not have an equal distribution of luck.

[Mark Edwards]

Folks, it was supposed to be fun, not perfect. Feel free to use it, ignore it, alter it, edit it -- if you decide to use ChartaCourse, you will automatically have the ability to directly edit the rules to your heart's delight. That would be fantastic, actually, because then we could compare results under different sets of rules. Think of how interesting that would be.

To the anons and Jimbino -- get help. Your fear of the unknown has morphed into paranoia and anger.

[Derek Tokaz]

I thought this was supposed to be a "useful means of teaching about the power of different conceptions of the right to exclude, and of inheritance laws, to shape society," not solely "fun." If it is supposed to be useful, then criticism about the accuracy of the analogies are appropriate. And I don't think the criticisms aren't that it simply isn't perfect -- it's that the analogies are so simplistic and inaccurate as to be at best useless, and at worst provide misinformation about how these systems work.

For instance, in Capitalist Monopoly, Player A earns 75% of Player E's funds for passing go (A gets $150 and E gets $50), and B gets half of D's money. Presumably this represents how owners get the lion's share of the value generated by their employees. But in Western Socialist Monopoly this element is gone. Does this mean that there are no business owners in Western Socialist countries? Or that they don't profit from the work of their employees? Or that owners and employees split the profits evenly?

[anon]

When someone responds to critiques of a proposition advanced by the author to putatively support teaching Property and Trusts and Estates - that it is inaccurate, over simplified, misplaced and inappropriate to a law school course - by calling people inappropriate names, and by claiming "Hey, who cares anyway?" then you know the author has no response.

These versions of Monopoly game indeed might be fun. When Monopoly was first created, it gave rise to a virtual wave of variants, before it was commercialized. That is fine.

But a law prof who purports to teach law may not, IMHO, mislead students by expressly claiming that these variants are related in any meaningful way to the described economic systems. We have enough misinformation and ignorance in the popular culture. Let's not exacerbate the problem IN LAW SCHOOL!

To say that posting this observation means that "my fear of the unknown has morphed into paranoia and anger" sounds more like hurt feelings and projection than reality.

[Steven Freedman]

I think Mark Edwards and others are responding to the hostile tone of the criticisms, not the criticisms per se. Mark's reworking of Monopoloy is meant to spark thought and conversation, not insults and derision.

This isn't sports talk 950, it's the faculty lounge.

[anon]

Steven

You aren't responding on the merits either. Instead, as usual, you are just calling people names, instead of addressing the arguments on the merits.

It is true: in the FL, folks can debate endless about the debate, instead of the substance.

I haven't heard a cogent defense of using overly simplified, inaccurate, politically biased and misleading materials to enhance teaching a law school course. If the materials are "fun" again so be it. But, Steve, can you tell us the reason you think these materials would be a "useful means of teaching about the power of different conceptions of the right to exclude, and of inheritance laws, to shape society."

Really?

[Steven Freedman]

@ anon. For a cogent defense, I refer you to Mark Edward's post and comments since I think he did a fine job explaining how he uses his reworked Monopoly game to introduce concepts he covers in his class.

As for name calling, I don't believe I did that.

Finally, give law students a bit of credit. Of course using Monopoly is an oversimplified way to discuss the complex topics covered by Mark. It's a game, not a treatise. My experience with law students is that they are mature enough to recognize that using a board game for an in-class exercise is not meant to dictate to students Marxist truisms about political economy, but just a fun, creative way to get students thinking about different concepts.

[Derek Tokaz]

For capitalist monopoly, Mark allows some players to "capture the labor-value of others." But why is this only in the capitalist system and not Western European Socialism? Don't Western European Socialist countries also have capitalism, shareholders, and investor profits? I don't think Stephan Persson is in the factory sewing every pair of jeans himself. I bet he's got a lot of employees, and he captures plenty of their labor-value.

And why is capitalist Player E eternally bound to Player A? That sounds more like slavery than capitalism. If capitalism is supposed to come with a very strong right to exclude, then how is Player A able to use the force of the state (aka: the rules) to take Player E's earned income? The right to exclude ought to protect his wages. If it was meant to represent corporate welfare, then okay, but it's not. It's capturing his labor value. Why can't E just say to B, "Hey, if you give me the same deal you have to D, I'll come work for you instead"? I mean, that's a whole lot closer to actual capitalism than this game's version of literal wage slavery, where A has a right, enforced by the state, to take a portion of E's wages.

Mark describes everyone getting the same $200 for passing go as being "paid equal wages throughout their lives." In the Western Democratic Socialist version players (with one exception) get the same $200 for passing go. So is the idea being expressed here that everyone in these countries earns the same wage? Even in upstanding socialist countries like Sweden, there's a huge disparity between the income of the top 10% and the bottom 10%, but that's not reflected at all in the exact mechanic that's intended to reflect that fact.

Imagine if we created Income Tax and Social Welfare Monopoly. Player A plays by the normal rules, except that when he passes go he must place $25 in the Free Parking pool, and give $50 to Player B. Player B has a very different set of rules. B does not move (but does not collect by staying on Go). Player B may buy 1 property per turn without moving to it. The game ends after 20 rounds, and the winner is determined by dividing total assets by number of spaces moved.

I'd expect the game to be criticized as a thinly veiled attack on the poor as "welfare queens" and would be properly rejected as just a strawman caricature. Would anyone buy the defense that it's just meant to be fun, introduce some concepts, and start a conversation?

I think that's what the criticism is getting at. That the rules of this game as so poorly reflective of reality that the game ultimately only serves (or only appears to serve) as thinly veiled anti-capitalist propaganda.