The feudalism edition: all players get a fixed amount of money per one property card every game round. In their turn, a player can declare war on another player to take a property card from them. Both players secretly spend money to muster armies and the player who spent more wins the war. Other players can join either side. The player with the most property cards after a fixed number of rounds wins the game.
Ironically, the original Game design monopoly was based on was made by a Socialist, and was called 'The landlords game'. The idea was to portray the disparity of influence and power one can have from owning more property than everyone else and how if you're uncontested you can make things cost so much that nobof=dy else can afford to live there anymore. Think back to your last game of monopoly, was there ever a point where a player had NO chance of winning, little money, no remaining assets, and you KNEW they were going to lose but they kept on struggling for a long time? This frustrating state is actually the whole point of the game, to illustrate that someone can have hypothetical freedoms and the 'chance' to still 'win the game' but realistically, the have no chance unless a player with more money and property helps them out.
Also if you are creating a PvP game, they are going to try to mess up their opponents in the game no matter the circumstances. Don't try making PvP games to spread activism.
@@ukkisragee9983 When I introduced my friend to board game "Twilight Struggle", I had a chance to win immediatelly, but I didn't take it because I didn't want him to dislike it.
The landlord game was developed to teach Georgism which removed all taxes from production and moved it onto land. Henry George saw that much of inequality comes from landlords taking an unearned income from the Labours of the community while socialists see the capitalist taking the unearned income. Henry George was right.
It’s a good idea though, and the mechanics are pretty worked out. There’s no late game here either. For regular monopoly it’s just owning a lot and hoping someone lands on it while you’re sitting in jail as to not step on anyone else’s property.
@@pumpkingamebox Maybe so, but base monopoly is incredibly boring. This just sounds agonizing, to the point of making me want to be the dickhead who tries to drain the community funds dry just to end the game early
@Fremen Well by exact definition, the USSR was socialist, not communist, communism is only when there's no state, no currency, no classes and there's a social ownership of the means of productions yet SOCIALISM is only when there's a social ownership of the means of productions, the end. The social ownership means the society owns the means of productions as a whole, which can mean it's the people or the state.
Yeah I was expecting Emma Goldberg, Peter krepopkin snd Vadimir Lenin to be discussing how to play before all chaos breaks out and the true entertainment is from the argument instead of the game
What's interesting is that this variant solves one of Monopolys biggest problems: players being knocked out and unable to do anything else. In this one, if one player loses, everyone loses, so everyone pitches in and collaborates to help other players from losing, but you're still striving to individually win. Super fascinating!
My friends and I played Communist Monopoly when we were kids. The only real rule change was that when you landed on Free Parking, everyone’s cash was pooled and a divided up equally. It forced you to constantly buy property and have as little cash on hand as possible. It was great for stopping hoarders and the like
This sounds kind of fun. It’s basically competitive cooperation. You try to win by helping others but you need to be careful of not spending the community funds too much. Unless your plan all along was for everyone to lose the game.
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Why do you prefer that those same idiots have no accountability? Because that is what you are proposing when you advocate for anything other than democracy.
Ironic that the original version of monopoly was a clone of the game landlords which is a satire and critique of capitalism, meanwhile monopoly socialism was a edit made by capitalist to mock socialism
The amazing thing is that Socialism is just as flawed as unchecked Capitalism. Shifting ownership of the means of production and resources from private hands to the government kicks the can down the road a bit. The only difference is a company can fail and that is fine, competition will sprout up with new businesses to fill the void. A government fails, and, well, that is far more catastrophic.
I never knew there were Monopoly variants that actually changed the rules up. This seems rather interesting, and I gotta say that I like the community fund feature, as well as giving the trains some extra utility.
the community fund is fun... until 1 person decides to play like that's their money. at which point, all other players have to funnel money into it to prevent a loss, which in turn just gives that 1 player money
Fortnite Monopoly makes the most changes id say. Completely reworking the money system for health, run out of health you die, you get chances to shoot others to remove their health, it's pretty cool
@@orangenostril Nah. It's by design that Capitalism rewards people who find a way in it and no one else. Rewarding for "exploits", as if something you weren't supposed to do, is exactly what Socialism does. It's a great idea in theory, but it has so many holes for "exploits", and there are so many people who would want to use them, so it just doesn't work.
Ya know... That could be a house rule: Determine a player to be the "Saboteur", they win if any of the regular lose conditions are met Maybe, I dunno lol
I can see this being a fun coop game that’s a bit closer to the ideals of socialism with one really minor rule change… instead of “the person who puts down all their contribution points first wins,” the game is instead “when everyone puts their contribution points down the group wins.” Would be more interesting, although might be an easier game if everyone communicates. Hmm… I wonder what that is saying…
Sounds like a good idea in theory, but probably not in practice. The game can be easily won by placing all the money in the comunity chest, auctioning off all the project at the lowest price, and paying for other player. Also it is not realistic as It ignores the human nature of wanting to “win” against each other. If humans are capable of working together without harming another human, we would of done it by now. I like how the game is because it shows that being greedy may help you win, but it risk causing problems for everyone.
5:05 I'll just take all the funds I need and bleed the community funds dry, by going around the board several times in one turn. I didn't mean to start any arguments
Thats why I always play the game with the "house rule" that says you can only use your own money to bid, not the community fund. Now people will usually think twice when they need to contribute to the fund: keep most of your money to bid with and potentially make everyone lose or put it in the pool to be safer
No since only one person wins still. Just more complex because the person losing wants to drain the community fund while the wining player wants to save it, but that makes it harder for them to win.
@@rrteppo Which kinda represents socialism, because failure is rewarded and success is punished until everyone starves. The 'winning' player is the one who is able to somehow convince the others to let him win, or is able to speedrun the game before the funds run out, and 'escapes' the game.
@@TarsonTalon I wouldn't say socialism "rewards failure" rather it rewards cooperation and timework, which this game as a parody made by rich capitalists, doesnt particularly get.
You decide for yourself what victory is. If you think working together to get all the projects properly developed is success, no rule listed in the game book can take that from you.
A college professor made a game called Anti-Monopoly in the late 70's in response to Monopoly. I think the Monopoly company tried to sue him for rights to the game or something but lost. I could be thinking of something else, though.
Despite not actually showing how socialism works in a practical way, they did kind of point out that socialism does work if the players are cooperating and trying to win, but fails when you have someone go out of their way to sabotage it.
But then showcases the reality of socialism because there can only be ONE winner, Dear Leader. Remove that rule, and you're not playing Monopoly Socialism, you're playing Monopoly Democracy - and laying the foundations for some nice poor-enriching capitalism.
@@KopperNeoman the one winner rule is the one thing that sticks out, but it doesn't make any sense with the theme. At that point, with everything developed, and the community healthy, having everyone else lose makes little sense. Also, yeah, poor enriching monopoly, where no one wins literally until everyone else is bankrupt.
@@cousinpatsey2471 maybe if everyone had the option to invest in their developments at the beginning of each turn everyone could gain 10 developments and win together 🤔
@@breaddboy it still doesn't make sense though. How does someone else improving a community project make the community lose? If anything, the win condition should be when everyone has collectively developed the board (or at least, as much as they can manage). Having a single winner doesn't make a lot of sense for a "socialist" board game.
@@cousinpatsey2471 But that's how things tend to turn out in our world. Ppl talk as if greed and corruption would be solved somehow if we just do X, Y or Z. Some1 is "winning" in the end and it's probably not going to be you and if it is you some1 will have lost out.
My one complaint is that I’m certain actual socialists would not care about using plastic straws. That feels more like Monopoly: Making Fun Of Liberals Edition
The amount of single-use plastics out in the world is a real problem, but replacing plastic straws is a complete red herring. The bigger issue is in packaging, whereas plastics straws are really the best possible option. It’s just something companies can do for cheap to make themselves look socially conscious.
@@dannypipewrench533 I'm here to make fun of people making fun of the liberals for thinking they're communists. I'm 4 parallel universes ahead of y'all peasants
@@cristsan4171 1) no, it isn't. 2) Christianity (specifically Lutheranism) came from Roman Orthodox Catholicism, which in itself came from the Jewish faith. And yet, none of those are similar beyond the basics of monotheistic faiths and their usual tropes. So not only are you wrong, but your "logic" is flawed beyond the fact that it's completely untrue.
@@cristsan4171 And no one asked for you to be stupid, that's why I'm educating you. And based on the fact that you're disproving your own point based on your "insult" to me, you clearly need that education. Also, where'd you get Buddhism from? LUL
@@agr_ "collaborator Friedrich Engels, Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which included a chapter criticizing those earlier socialist models as utterly unrealistic “utopian” dreams."
@@agr_ "Due to his political publications, Marx became stateless and lived in exile with his wife and children in London" First, being a writer is a career. Second, Marx really gonna look for work if he's in exile?
Monopoly was made to be a parody showing how rediculous capitalism. Ironically, it wasn't made to be fun, it was made to show you how unfair it can be when you just get unlucky with the dice.
@@OGEdger The Landlords game and monopoly were played on a similar board, with different rules. Which makes them different games. Like chess and checkers.
My brain hurts, its a game were you NEED to play together to not loose but in the same time you need to win and let the others loose. This game has so much potential for betray and cheating others. Its almost Mario Party in a socialism board game.
You can easily make everyone lose the game if a project goes to auction. Just simply bid $9999 (or the sum of your own money + the community fund) and boom, everyone loses. Or, as some other comments have pointed out, ride the train and go on 80 laps until the community fund runs out lol
@@MrAWESOMUS What I find really confusing: There seem to be some cards and mechanics that, to me, a German that lives in a healthy social-democratic system, seem very reasonable and not at all wrong. For example, there is a card reading "the school needs new computers, better pay up! You have no kids? Then tough luck!". This is obviously intended to outrage the players, but in reality, this is basically our digitalization-package (a government program enacted last year to help schools during at-home-schooling in Corona) which only saw criticism because *people thought too little money was allocated to the project.* Also, the project mechanic seems to be REALLY nice for representing local, communal socialism on a city or village level. Everyone contributes to it, there is just one player that manages it. This is how local projects could very well work under socialism. I only take some offense to some VERY offensive cards ("You seem to be too well off. That's not socialism, got to JAIL") and the fact that the community fund is open to everyone without a vote (making the game more anarchist than socialist). But besides that, it seems to be great! I will definetly buy it for my next party meeting!
I've played Advanced Squad Leader before, and it's rulebook comes (literally) in a 3-ring binder... And it was less confusing than this 7 minute ramble of "contributions" and "projects."
@@ShuffleUpandDeal32 You may carbon based life form with very little comprehension abilities, have lost your ability to detect satire or jokes in general! They just wooosh over your head and you never get hit from a punch line!
@@darnit1944 I mean, I don't think there had been any cultures that use a barter economy. I'm pretty sure they all used a gift economy. At the very least, its much more common. And I wouldn't call the system itself primitive, its more the other way around, where primitive societies are much more favorable to gift economies, allowing for them to thrive in the time being.
@@digaddog6099 You're right. There isn't any culture out there. But we are talking about anarchism here. In this world everyone knows the concept of money but there is no legal tender that is legitimate and accepted by all. So they will probably use barter system unless they found something to be used as currency. I've been playing way too much fallout. People used bottle caps as currency and barters.
A variant of this game that I came up with: Rolling 2x on the action die counts as a double. Every turn, add the total of the dice onto the community funds. If you go to the gulag (Jail), then you don't collect $50, but you still have to contribute to the community funds and everyone else collects $50 and contributes to the community funds as well. If you pass GO with the community shuttle, then all players collect $50 and contribute to the community funds. If you land on Free Parking, then each player collects $5 from the community fund. You may not receive money for other players developing your projects while in the gulag. That money goes to the bank instead. You can get out of the gulag by rolling doubles with both dice, as well as paying $50 or a Get out of the gulag free card. When every player places all their contribution chips, then every player wins! There is no individual winning.
My Variation: The Maximum Auction Value is twice the Project's Listed Price. Example: if a Project's listed Price is $100 anyone who bids $200 immediately ends the auction, and that player will buy the project. This is what I call, "Buyout".
Still somewhat off and partly makes fun of socialism as same or close to stereotypical communism (which it definitely isn't), although in other ways, it represents socialism corrextly. The ideas are a bit clashing
@@arttukettunen5757 og Monopoly is making fun of capitalism. And honestly Americans call everything socialism, including capitalism. (Trust me I have seen people make the argument that buying a house is socialism.)
Are you losing the game? Use the several "everyone loses" tools to equalize. Live up to Monopoly's worse sides, multiplied by a thausand with the ability to ruin everyones games even if youre not winning
I feel like this is trying to poke fun at socialism, but at the same time, it manages to be better than regular monopoly and inadvertently prove that socialism is better in the long term than capitalism. Refular monopoly, the goal of winning is to own as much as you can and it’s a very steamroll heavy game where if any one player gets a significant advantage early on, they’ll have a much easier time keeping the lead, and the end state is inevitably one person owning everything with ridiculous rent fees for both basic living, utilities, and transportation (an oligarchical dystopia if ever I’ve seen one). But the end goal in Socialism Monopoly is just to contribute as much to the community as possible while also awarding the people who helped make those projects possible. It’s a pretty good system where no one is ever left behind while still rewarding people who put in hard work and the end state isn’t really all that unfair, the person who won will likely have more wealth but the other players won’t be bankrupt. Definitely a better alternative to regular Monopoly in my eyes
@@sunjian9818that's also the point of base monopoly. It was made by socialists to demonstrate how bad capitalism is. Yknow that state where you have no money and are struggling to survive unless another player helps? Yea that's the point of the game.
@@sunjian9818 Not precisely. In a communist as described by Marx, there really is no issue of human greed. Go ahead and be greedy. Human greed is a problem when somebody enforces your property. But the point is that there is no property, and no police to defend it. This game is a little confused. Half the time it mocks socialism as the straw man a right winger may explain it (silly small scale projects by the community without actually doing anything) but also tries to be "accurate" to socialism with community funds and "helping one another" whatever that may mean. A Marxist would tell you that it's inaccurate just because it has a jail.
If I had no chance of victory and was allowed to bid on my own auctions, I could force a draw simply by landing on an unmanaged project, auctioning it, then yelling, "20 Million!" This way, at least two people have to be sick of the game to trigger it.
5:43 So you're telling me the game developed by capitalists to mock socialists, based on a game invented by socialists to mock capitalists, keeps the critique of the capitalist attitude to jail by still allowing you to earn money and profit from your possessions while in prison and you bribing your way to a shorter sentence?
I know, right? At the very least it would have been funnier, if not more accurate, to have "Jail" be "gulag" and be an instant-death button for the player. Not very fun, but neither is pissing off the Supreme Leader under a real regime eh? It would have played to the satirical nature better than just leaving the old rule as it is, especially when you compare it to the tongue-in-cheek property names like "Vegan Milkshake Shop".
@@bt3743 taxes aren’t capitalism, are you stupid? Taxes existed in feudalism, tribalism, and in every other economic system. Why? Because taxes are a government process. Not an economic one. Capitalism does not take taxes into account, while socialism does.
This might seem anti-socialism, but if you think about it logically, there's no reason for the players in game to drag each other down in order to put themselves on top. We as players do, but the characters we represent don't. If you play this game cooperatively, then you see how absurdly easy the game is. It's almost making the point that if you set aside your differences and work together, we can get everything done, give everyone a good life, and have a ton of cash left over. You have to be deliberately irrational to fail in this game, as opposed to regular monopoly, where everyone but one person ends up bankrupt after being jailed several times.
Yes, but where is Monopoly dictatorship? Ya know, the one where nobody wins and the players attempt to undermine the ruling authority in an effort to be the last person to lose...
Probably not. Too many rules, and not a lot of permutation between games. Too much reliance on dice rolls. It's just as much a gimmicky mess as of monopoly, but this time with more rules.
@@MakenaForest Nah it's a pretty accurate depiction. It's going to end with the majority having gained nothing but suffering Like socialism always has and will. The only issue is that everyone losing is only an option and not an inevitability
It seems good until you realize there are various Nuke options that make everyone lose the game, like making laps using the shuttle, or bidding a project a bagillion dollars to bleed the community fund dry. If one person is winning, and you realize youre about to lose, theres nothing stopping you from pulling the plug and forcing stalemate. Imagine if uno had a stalemate button and whenever anyone got down to 2 cards someone would nuke the game.
The irony that this was made to mock socialism, but it's a genuinely fun cooperative set up and doesn't portray the ideals negatively aside from if for whatever reason someone is ruining the game for everyone. (purposefully draining the fund.)
@@Kornknealious I mean, it's not a bottomless pit here either. If it's empty you loose. Personal wealth only benefits you for as long as the common foundation remains. Don't put anything into your community and you suck it all dry for everyone; don't keep yourself afloat and you end up loosing anyway.
@@lily_littleangel Except real life isn't a game, and people who get to authority positions aren't a bunch of friends just wanting to have fun together.
You can roleplay as a capitalist in this game by bringing a baseball bat to the game and smashing the board on your turn. this ends the game instantly.
That's just normal socialism. Roleplaying a capitalist would result in a game of Stratego - if you win, everyone plays Boom Street. If you lose, everyone loses.
Then you play a round of regular monopoly until the next election happens and everybody decides to go back to playing monopoly socialism. Repeat until you start playing monopoly fascism
Although it doesn’t do very well just because it targets a very specific type of socialism that is, well, old for today’s standards. Where’s the tax? The Democratic workplaces?
This game shows the "tragedy of the commons" problem. Where some resource is common (for everyone's use), for every individual the most profitable action is to exploit it as much as possible, before everyone else (because if they do the same, you'll get nothing). It usually ends with resource so drained it cannot regrow or it's destroyed just afrer it's rebuilt. So everyone is miserable in the long term. To stop this tragedy either: 1. Resource stops being common and it's divided among users, thus becomes private (expoiting resource you own beyond repair is not profitable long term). This of course has potential to create monopolies and other problems associated with that. Also not every resource can or should be splitted or splitting make a difference. 2. The members of community keep each other in check and exclude from themselves those who exploit. Because it requires the majority of members to be responsible and care about common good, it's quite utopian if comminity is large, unlikely. 3. Regulations are made to prevent exploitation. They are not always perfect and may favor those who are powerfull enough to influence the ones that made the regulations.
REAL capitalists put as little effort into their products as possible. That maximizes the "energy expended to profit ratio". But it also means everything produced under capitalism is utter crap. Case in point.
A lot of lefties cried a thousand tears over this game when it first came out. Said it was an inaccurate depiction of socialism. I would have to agree because you can actually win in Monopoly:Socialism. In real-life socialism, you can’t!
You missed the rules on the violent pregame civil war, also the rules on how to print your own money if your in a pinch. It typically only makes things worse but still
Great explanation and game! I just thought of a sore loser *cheat*. If 1 player has lots of money and only 1 chip left to win, a losing player (with little chance to win) can deplete the Community Fund, just so they all lose together.
Monopoly, a game developed by socialists to mock capitalism, now has a variant developed by capitalists to mock socialism. Thank you hasbro very cool.
truthful
It was georgist not a socialist.
@@hopefulmayhem5744 shhhh is a joke
@@ToxicAtom jokes only work if they have some truth.
@@hopefulmayhem5744 jokes only work if you don't overanalyze them
That sounds complicated.....
When are we getting Monopoly: Feudalism Edition?
Houses are now serfs
That sounds fun!
The feudalism edition: all players get a fixed amount of money per one property card every game round. In their turn, a player can declare war on another player to take a property card from them. Both players secretly spend money to muster armies and the player who spent more wins the war. Other players can join either side. The player with the most property cards after a fixed number of rounds wins the game.
@@kamilgregor I actually want to see that as a game. Along with many other kinds of government systems.
That's called Monopoly.
Ironically, the original Game design monopoly was based on was made by a Socialist, and was called 'The landlords game'. The idea was to portray the disparity of influence and power one can have from owning more property than everyone else and how if you're uncontested you can make things cost so much that nobof=dy else can afford to live there anymore. Think back to your last game of monopoly, was there ever a point where a player had NO chance of winning, little money, no remaining assets, and you KNEW they were going to lose but they kept on struggling for a long time? This frustrating state is actually the whole point of the game, to illustrate that someone can have hypothetical freedoms and the 'chance' to still 'win the game' but realistically, the have no chance unless a player with more money and property helps them out.
Also if you are creating a PvP game, they are going to try to mess up their opponents in the game no matter the circumstances. Don't try making PvP games to spread activism.
Also most of the games outcome is dependent on the dice/chance. Similar to.... You can make the connection.
@@ukkisragee9983 When I introduced my friend to board game "Twilight Struggle", I had a chance to win immediatelly, but I didn't take it because I didn't want him to dislike it.
@@ukkisragee9983 Not now anyways.
The landlord game was developed to teach Georgism which removed all taxes from production and moved it onto land. Henry George saw that much of inequality comes from landlords taking an unearned income from the Labours of the community while socialists see the capitalist taking the unearned income. Henry George was right.
And all this time I thought this was a joke. This is a real board game.
The box does say it is a parody game though
@@TripleSGames Oops; sorry.
Well its out of print now lol
It’s a good idea though, and the mechanics are pretty worked out. There’s no late game here either. For regular monopoly it’s just owning a lot and hoping someone lands on it while you’re sitting in jail as to not step on anyone else’s property.
@@pumpkingamebox Maybe so, but base monopoly is incredibly boring. This just sounds agonizing, to the point of making me want to be the dickhead who tries to drain the community funds dry just to end the game early
„Put the stickers on the dice“
I hate this game already without seeing or owning it.
Yeah. That's like the only thing I don't like about this game.
Fainéant va
You don't need to do that, just label 1 and 2 as +1 and +2, respectively, and 6 as 2x
@@claromale brrrrr
Who here hates putting stickers on dice?
when the player gets 1848 dollars at start, its a reference to when karl marx's book "the communist manifesto" was written
Which doesn't make any sense because this game is about socialism
@@Coaster42 Probably just a reference to the disturbingly large amount of people who think being a socialist and a communist are the same thing
@@yami_k5405 socialism is an umbrella term though
@@yami_k5405 Actually, Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. The different definitions are usually attributed to Lenin
@Fremen Well by exact definition, the USSR was socialist, not communist, communism is only when there's no state, no currency, no classes and there's a social ownership of the means of productions
yet SOCIALISM is only when there's a social ownership of the means of productions, the end. The social ownership means the society owns the means of productions as a whole, which can mean it's the people or the state.
I was expecting a 7 minute meme. Instead I got rules to a board game.
But was he seriously a socialist? Or just explaining the game.... we may never know
Yeah I was expecting Emma Goldberg, Peter krepopkin snd Vadimir Lenin to be discussing how to play before all chaos breaks out and the true entertainment is from the argument instead of the game
@@jmurray1110
Lmao
well you know the saying; what you see is what you get!
most leftist memes take about 7 minutes
What's interesting is that this variant solves one of Monopolys biggest problems: players being knocked out and unable to do anything else. In this one, if one player loses, everyone loses, so everyone pitches in and collaborates to help other players from losing, but you're still striving to individually win.
Super fascinating!
Like usual, fun on paper, horrible in practice.
assuming everyone cooperates
@@neko_aple I mean, there are plenty of cooperative board games. Hardly a new concept.
@@sid2112 > regular monopoly
@@sid2112 Have you played the game? Describe your experience!
My friends and I played Communist Monopoly when we were kids. The only real rule change was that when you landed on Free Parking, everyone’s cash was pooled and a divided up equally. It forced you to constantly buy property and have as little cash on hand as possible. It was great for stopping hoarders and the like
Wow that's actually sounds like a fun and interesting houserule!
So basically when you land on a Bowser space in Mario Party and get the Bowser Revolution event
That actually sounds kinda sick
I'm pretty sure the optimal strategy in Monopoly is to buy almost everything anyway
That sounds like how to escape taxes
This sounds kind of fun. It’s basically competitive cooperation. You try to win by helping others but you need to be careful of not spending the community funds too much. Unless your plan all along was for everyone to lose the game.
You can rp a psychopath who wants to ruin everyone
@@headtaker02 ...Socialism is about worker democracy.
@@headtaker02 no you jusy get everyone to lose
@@EdgieAlias worker democracy is not a utopia fundamentally it means that the idiotic masses will be given too much power
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Why do you prefer that those same idiots have no accountability? Because that is what you are proposing when you advocate for anything other than democracy.
Ironic that the original version of monopoly was a clone of the game landlords which is a satire and critique of capitalism, meanwhile monopoly socialism was a edit made by capitalist to mock socialism
tbf i would much rather be in this monopoly world than the capitalist one
that's not irony
@@emmalopez5333 tell that to anyone who's lived in a society that tried this Monopoly's world lol
@@Bean_Soup it is irony
The amazing thing is that Socialism is just as flawed as unchecked Capitalism. Shifting ownership of the means of production and resources from private hands to the government kicks the can down the road a bit. The only difference is a company can fail and that is fine, competition will sprout up with new businesses to fill the void. A government fails, and, well, that is far more catastrophic.
I never knew there were Monopoly variants that actually changed the rules up. This seems rather interesting, and I gotta say that I like the community fund feature, as well as giving the trains some extra utility.
There's a lot, actually. I like the one with the speed die.
the community fund is fun... until 1 person decides to play like that's their money. at which point, all other players have to funnel money into it to prevent a loss, which in turn just gives that 1 player money
@@Lightmagician60 or just have everyone intentionally lose to teach em a lesson
Me neither lol
Fortnite Monopoly makes the most changes id say. Completely reworking the money system for health, run out of health you die, you get chances to shoot others to remove their health, it's pretty cool
I enjoyed playing this game. Mainly there is that one player who is purposely sabotaging the game xD
huh, just like real life.
Yup. That's why socialism will never work. There are always people who would ruin it.
@@antongrigoryev6381 The difference is capitalism rewards the people who exploit it
@@orangenostril Nah. It's by design that Capitalism rewards people who find a way in it and no one else.
Rewarding for "exploits", as if something you weren't supposed to do, is exactly what Socialism does. It's a great idea in theory, but it has so many holes for "exploits", and there are so many people who would want to use them, so it just doesn't work.
Ya know... That could be a house rule:
Determine a player to be the "Saboteur", they win if any of the regular lose conditions are met
Maybe, I dunno lol
I can see this being a fun coop game that’s a bit closer to the ideals of socialism with one really minor rule change… instead of “the person who puts down all their contribution points first wins,” the game is instead “when everyone puts their contribution points down the group wins.”
Would be more interesting, although might be an easier game if everyone communicates. Hmm… I wonder what that is saying…
That is a good idea.
the last person to place their contribution chips down wins (free money)
Cool idea but that's not how it works, ever heard the phrase "some are more equal than others."
Sounds like a good idea in theory, but probably not in practice. The game can be easily won by placing all the money in the comunity chest, auctioning off all the project at the lowest price, and paying for other player. Also it is not realistic as It ignores the human nature of wanting to “win” against each other. If humans are capable of working together without harming another human, we would of done it by now. I like how the game is because it shows that being greedy may help you win, but it risk causing problems for everyone.
c o m m i e
5:05 I'll just take all the funds I need and bleed the community funds dry, by going around the board several times in one turn.
I didn't mean to start any arguments
Its more like capitalism then......
@@amitharavindpai3049 No, it's just me causing chaos by not completely wasting 100% of the community funds unless it's a multiple of 50.
@@legendgames128 oh...yeah...I get it now
Same thought, if you are losing just fk up the whole country
No one would want to play with you anymore just like kicking you out of the community
So 1 player can single-handedly end the game through a high auction bet that bankrupts the community fund?
🤣🤣🤣 yep
Thats why I always play the game with the "house rule" that says you can only use your own money to bid, not the community fund. Now people will usually think twice when they need to contribute to the fund: keep most of your money to bid with and potentially make everyone lose or put it in the pool to be safer
That's why we co-operate and not act selfishly
Happens all the time on real life. It's called Government corruption.
@@MrFiki2000 bid everything and then just live of the community fund and end game in like 3 turns
So this is more coop than anything else?
I didn't mean to start any conflicts, but that seems to be what happens.
No since only one person wins still. Just more complex because the person losing wants to drain the community fund while the wining player wants to save it, but that makes it harder for them to win.
It's a semi-coop; lose together but win alone
@@rrteppo Which kinda represents socialism, because failure is rewarded and success is punished until everyone starves. The 'winning' player is the one who is able to somehow convince the others to let him win, or is able to speedrun the game before the funds run out, and 'escapes' the game.
@@TarsonTalon I wouldn't say socialism "rewards failure" rather it rewards cooperation and timework, which this game as a parody made by rich capitalists, doesnt particularly get.
@@TarsonTalon yeah like when big Banks fail and we have to bail them out...wait a minute
Can't wait for monopoly caveman addition were the player trades their wife for a wheel.
family guy caveman edition.
Can’t wait for the spin off of Monopoly Caveman: Monopoly Somalia. This time you trade wife for internet connection.
@@r3alityrjectna452 trade wife for wifi
@@yaysuu trade e for i
@@beaclaster and then the i for an u and the circle is complete
The problem is that the game is still about winning and about competing with others.
You should be able to win as a team.
It's so funny how socialists don't understand human nature, even after decades of failures
Then play break the safe instead.
You decide for yourself what victory is. If you think working together to get all the projects properly developed is success, no rule listed in the game book can take that from you.
That would make sense if it was meant to be about socialism in the real sense
I think that by not losing you already kind of win as a team.
A Socialist version of Monopoly sounds like an interesting project proposal for whatever game-making college class one would take.
The guy who "made" this game probably stole it from his classmates. You know, classic capitalism.
@@krisdaschwab912 Good thing it's not communism. We wouldn't want the entire class to starve.
@@krisdaschwab912 the idea for Monopoly was stolen from a woman and sold to parker brothers
@@averageparasenjoyer who was ironically mocking capitalism
A college professor made a game called Anti-Monopoly in the late 70's in response to Monopoly. I think the Monopoly company tried to sue him for rights to the game or something but lost. I could be thinking of something else, though.
Despite not actually showing how socialism works in a practical way, they did kind of point out that socialism does work if the players are cooperating and trying to win, but fails when you have someone go out of their way to sabotage it.
But then showcases the reality of socialism because there can only be ONE winner, Dear Leader.
Remove that rule, and you're not playing Monopoly Socialism, you're playing Monopoly Democracy - and laying the foundations for some nice poor-enriching capitalism.
@@KopperNeoman the one winner rule is the one thing that sticks out, but it doesn't make any sense with the theme. At that point, with everything developed, and the community healthy, having everyone else lose makes little sense.
Also, yeah, poor enriching monopoly, where no one wins literally until everyone else is bankrupt.
@@cousinpatsey2471 maybe if everyone had the option to invest in their developments at the beginning of each turn everyone could gain 10 developments and win together 🤔
@@breaddboy it still doesn't make sense though. How does someone else improving a community project make the community lose? If anything, the win condition should be when everyone has collectively developed the board (or at least, as much as they can manage). Having a single winner doesn't make a lot of sense for a "socialist" board game.
@@cousinpatsey2471 But that's how things tend to turn out in our world. Ppl talk as if greed and corruption would be solved somehow if we just do X, Y or Z. Some1 is "winning" in the end and it's probably not going to be you and if it is you some1 will have lost out.
My one complaint is that I’m certain actual socialists would not care about using plastic straws. That feels more like Monopoly: Making Fun Of Liberals Edition
The amount of single-use plastics out in the world is a real problem, but replacing plastic straws is a complete red herring. The bigger issue is in packaging, whereas plastics straws are really the best possible option. It’s just something companies can do for cheap to make themselves look socially conscious.
Liberals and leftist are completely different
Well, I think that is all why we are here anyway. We all like making fun of Liberals.
@@dannypipewrench533 I'm here to make fun of people making fun of the liberals for thinking they're communists. I'm 4 parallel universes ahead of y'all peasants
@@dannypipewrench533 liberals are right wing libertarians
Nice of them to add a way out for people who didn't really wanna play. Land on community shuttle: drive in circles until fund is empty, then leave.
I don't think that's how it works
me never going to play this game in my live:
„interesting“
The dice are 2 1x1 rubiks cubes
The normal die is stickerles the other is sticker cube
Finally a cube I can solve.
In socialist monopoly, property buys *you*
Hello hecker
That's communist. 😂
Socialism is based on Communism
@@cristsan4171 1) no, it isn't.
2) Christianity (specifically Lutheranism) came from Roman Orthodox Catholicism, which in itself came from the Jewish faith. And yet, none of those are similar beyond the basics of monotheistic faiths and their usual tropes.
So not only are you wrong, but your "logic" is flawed beyond the fact that it's completely untrue.
@@cristsan4171 And no one asked for you to be stupid, that's why I'm educating you. And based on the fact that you're disproving your own point based on your "insult" to me, you clearly need that education.
Also, where'd you get Buddhism from? LUL
Imagine making socialist monopoly and not calling "Jail" "Gulag"
That's Communism
@@OysterCupcake “The goal of socialism is communism” Vladimir Lenin
@@agr_ "collaborator Friedrich Engels, Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which included a chapter criticizing those earlier socialist models as utterly unrealistic “utopian” dreams."
@@OysterCupcake you forgot the part where Marx was a jobless hobo who never had a job throughout his life
@@agr_ "Due to his political publications, Marx became stateless and lived in exile with his wife and children in London" First, being a writer is a career. Second, Marx really gonna look for work if he's in exile?
Despite how mean-spirited it is in it’s mockery of socialism, this actually seems like it would be more fun than regular monopoly.
@@thotslayer9914 still socialism, though...
cant wait for monopoly socialism junior
teaches cooperation
Like, i Will not Even try to win this Game, it seems just fun enought to try to help the Development of the projects.
@@LaMadriguera
Fr
Looks like the kind of game everyone would be happy if someone wins.
You can’t be mean-spirited to a socialist. They’re not human.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of economic democracy but I guess it's closer to it than the original monopoly.
Monopoly was made to be a parody showing how rediculous capitalism. Ironically, it wasn't made to be fun, it was made to show you how unfair it can be when you just get unlucky with the dice.
@@CrossxFir3
No it wasn't lol
@@merlintym1928
In the original version, before being bought by Hasbro, it was.
@@OGEdger
The Landlords game and monopoly were played on a similar board, with different rules. Which makes them different games. Like chess and checkers.
@@CrossxFir3 capitalism isn't reliant on luck
My brain hurts, its a game were you NEED to play together to not loose but in the same time you need to win and let the others loose. This game has so much potential for betray and cheating others. Its almost Mario Party in a socialism board game.
This sounds like a fun team building activity. I actually wanna try this
You can easily make everyone lose the game if a project goes to auction. Just simply bid $9999 (or the sum of your own money + the community fund) and boom, everyone loses.
Or, as some other comments have pointed out, ride the train and go on 80 laps until the community fund runs out lol
That $1848 symbolism is hilarious
0:40 hasbro been cheap on the dice
very socialist quality
I just got myself confused trying to figure out how socialists could have a monopoly, and I still don’t get it
State monopoly?
@@revimfadli4666 That'd be closer to Communism than Socialism
@@revimfadli4666 that’s state capitalism but sometimes that’s used synonymously with socialism
This game is obviously more focused on "owning the libs" than on making the game mechanics reflect what socialism actually is.
@@MrAWESOMUS
What I find really confusing: There seem to be some cards and mechanics that, to me, a German that lives in a healthy social-democratic system, seem very reasonable and not at all wrong.
For example, there is a card reading "the school needs new computers, better pay up! You have no kids? Then tough luck!". This is obviously intended to outrage the players, but in reality, this is basically our digitalization-package (a government program enacted last year to help schools during at-home-schooling in Corona) which only saw criticism because *people thought too little money was allocated to the project.*
Also, the project mechanic seems to be REALLY nice for representing local, communal socialism on a city or village level. Everyone contributes to it, there is just one player that manages it. This is how local projects could very well work under socialism.
I only take some offense to some VERY offensive cards ("You seem to be too well off. That's not socialism, got to JAIL") and the fact that the community fund is open to everyone without a vote (making the game more anarchist than socialist).
But besides that, it seems to be great! I will definetly buy it for my next party meeting!
"no tip vegan restaurant" this game deadass made by a 50 year old lmaoo
I'd eat there
Its a meme game don't overthink it.
Learn to take a joke
@@xFreSh999_ you're responding to a literal joke
@@xFreSh999_ the irony of this is way to dank
I've played Advanced Squad Leader before, and it's rulebook comes (literally) in a 3-ring binder...
And it was less confusing than this 7 minute ramble of "contributions" and "projects."
I'm so disappointed that they didn't call the jail the gulag
Gulag isn't a jail. It's an administrative organ.
And game isn't about USSR.
@@c-c-combobreak I think you missed the joke entirely
@@ShuffleUpandDeal32 You may carbon based life form with very little comprehension abilities, have lost your ability to detect satire or jokes in general!
They just wooosh over your head and you never get hit from a punch line!
@@redactedoktor just saw punchline at the infirmary said their hand still hurts after they punched the brick wall instead of him
@@AlexanderDivineEmcee The joke is me making fun of Russia being "socalist" it's really not that deep
I love it, loosing vs the game and when you put the winners money into the community thing and keep playing, everyone can win
Never knew that this existed.
Nice.
Finally, Monopoly has made fun of both Capitalism and Socialism. Its time for Anarchism Monopoly.
There is no bank, no jail, and the money is worthless. The people go back into the primitive barter system.
Or maybe pay with bottle caps.
Isn't that just Risk?
@@TarsonTalon The only risk is the risk of developing an economy
@@darnit1944 I mean, I don't think there had been any cultures that use a barter economy. I'm pretty sure they all used a gift economy. At the very least, its much more common. And I wouldn't call the system itself primitive, its more the other way around, where primitive societies are much more favorable to gift economies, allowing for them to thrive in the time being.
@@digaddog6099 You're right. There isn't any culture out there. But we are talking about anarchism here. In this world everyone knows the concept of money but there is no legal tender that is legitimate and accepted by all. So they will probably use barter system unless they found something to be used as currency.
I've been playing way too much fallout. People used bottle caps as currency and barters.
We and my pals made a game similar to this in our Russian class. Instead of money, we used potatoes.
communist monopoly
@@seanordonez9208_Survivalist monopoly_
Monopoly, which was once a free for all battle, is now a game to work together; I'd really love to try it!
A variant of this game that I came up with:
Rolling 2x on the action die counts as a double.
Every turn, add the total of the dice onto the community funds.
If you go to the gulag (Jail), then you don't collect $50, but you still have to contribute to the community funds and everyone else collects $50 and contributes to the community funds as well.
If you pass GO with the community shuttle, then all players collect $50 and contribute to the community funds.
If you land on Free Parking, then each player collects $5 from the community fund.
You may not receive money for other players developing your projects while in the gulag. That money goes to the bank instead.
You can get out of the gulag by rolling doubles with both dice, as well as paying $50 or a Get out of the gulag free card.
When every player places all their contribution chips, then every player wins! There is no individual winning.
My Variation: The Maximum Auction Value is twice the Project's Listed Price. Example: if a Project's listed Price is $100 anyone who bids $200 immediately ends the auction, and that player will buy the project. This is what I call, "Buyout".
@@addisonfung5009 Nice.
This is supposed to be a critique, but this seems so much nicer and more fun than normal.
The theme is both brilliantly clever and exceedingly dumb at the same time.
This is purely brilliant. The closest represnation of socialism I have seen.
Bruh
except that theres not a way for multiple players to win
Still somewhat off and partly makes fun of socialism as same or close to stereotypical communism (which it definitely isn't), although in other ways, it represents socialism corrextly. The ideas are a bit clashing
@@arttukettunen5757 og Monopoly is making fun of capitalism. And honestly Americans call everything socialism, including capitalism. (Trust me I have seen people make the argument that buying a house is socialism.)
@@rrteppo it's socialism if you get some of the money from the community then In that cercumstance it is socialist to buy a house
"Jail", not being "gulag". I'm disappointed.
I love that 99% of the rules don't matter because you can just end the game making everyone lose by spending all the community fund super early.
after Lenin died the general committee was led by 7 people and 6 of them were killed by Stalin.😂
01:15 - 01:18 a plus 1 means to draw 1 chance card and a plus 2 means you draw 2 chance cards 💳
This just shows that neither capitalism nor socialism works perfectly
Now they need communist monopoly and trade economy monopoly.
Are you losing the game? Use the several "everyone loses" tools to equalize.
Live up to Monopoly's worse sides, multiplied by a thausand with the ability to ruin everyones games even if youre not winning
“Everyone loses the game” LOL
I feel like this is trying to poke fun at socialism, but at the same time, it manages to be better than regular monopoly and inadvertently prove that socialism is better in the long term than capitalism. Refular monopoly, the goal of winning is to own as much as you can and it’s a very steamroll heavy game where if any one player gets a significant advantage early on, they’ll have a much easier time keeping the lead, and the end state is inevitably one person owning everything with ridiculous rent fees for both basic living, utilities, and transportation (an oligarchical dystopia if ever I’ve seen one). But the end goal in Socialism Monopoly is just to contribute as much to the community as possible while also awarding the people who helped make those projects possible. It’s a pretty good system where no one is ever left behind while still rewarding people who put in hard work and the end state isn’t really all that unfair, the person who won will likely have more wealth but the other players won’t be bankrupt. Definitely a better alternative to regular Monopoly in my eyes
wait, so do all players not start off with any money?
so it's really easy to bankrupt the community funds...and only one of you "wins". So, how will Socialism [Monopoly] work with greedy players?
@@MindOfGenius That's the point, Socialism like communism is flawed by human greed, this game is used to illustrate that.
@@sunjian9818that's also the point of base monopoly. It was made by socialists to demonstrate how bad capitalism is. Yknow that state where you have no money and are struggling to survive unless another player helps? Yea that's the point of the game.
@@SpadeWolfo So both monopolies confirm that Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism doesn't work well.
@@sunjian9818 Not precisely. In a communist as described by Marx, there really is no issue of human greed. Go ahead and be greedy. Human greed is a problem when somebody enforces your property. But the point is that there is no property, and no police to defend it. This game is a little confused. Half the time it mocks socialism as the straw man a right winger may explain it (silly small scale projects by the community without actually doing anything) but also tries to be "accurate" to socialism with community funds and "helping one another" whatever that may mean. A Marxist would tell you that it's inaccurate just because it has a jail.
This is actually a very interesting way to play
Only your rivals can bid on a project/property you're auctioning?
If I had no chance of victory and was allowed to bid on my own auctions, I could force a draw simply by landing on an unmanaged project, auctioning it, then yelling, "20 Million!" This way, at least two people have to be sick of the game to trigger it.
This is the best thing I have ever seen. Is this a comedy channel?
Yeah, I beat Elizabeth Maggie's feeling rather warm and fuzzy about this version of The Landlords' game, isn't she?
Monopoly socialism is actually anti-socialist
Just like normal monopoly is to capitalism
That’s because this is a parody by a scout it’s company that doesn’t under socialism
@@jmurray1110 what?
@@thatfamiiiarnight3665 No idea what I meant to put but idiot or propagandist could work
Just like all socialist examples to you guys lol. It conveniently never is socialism even when followed by the textbook definition 🤷♀️
5:43 So you're telling me the game developed by capitalists to mock socialists, based on a game invented by socialists to mock capitalists, keeps the critique of the capitalist attitude to jail by still allowing you to earn money and profit from your possessions while in prison and you bribing your way to a shorter sentence?
I know, right? At the very least it would have been funnier, if not more accurate, to have "Jail" be "gulag" and be an instant-death button for the player. Not very fun, but neither is pissing off the Supreme Leader under a real regime eh? It would have played to the satirical nature better than just leaving the old rule as it is, especially when you compare it to the tongue-in-cheek property names like "Vegan Milkshake Shop".
This isn't really Monopoly Socialism. Real Monopoly Socialism has never been tried before.
I'm just gonna house rule a tax on monetary transactions to put money back into the community fund because that's Socialism would actually work.
That's literally just sales tax and it already exists under capitlaism
@@bt3743 taxes aren’t capitalism, are you stupid? Taxes existed in feudalism, tribalism, and in every other economic system. Why? Because taxes are a government process. Not an economic one. Capitalism does not take taxes into account, while socialism does.
@@sandshark2 I get what you’re saying but they didn’t say taxes are inherently capitalist, but that they already exist under capitalism
Are you saying theres actually a functioning form of Socialism that doesn't lead to eventual collapse of the economy?
@@alexjaeger3033 most "Capitalist" economies are being propped up by Socialist intervention. Welfare, subsidies, government contracts, etc.
This might seem anti-socialism, but if you think about it logically, there's no reason for the players in game to drag each other down in order to put themselves on top. We as players do, but the characters we represent don't. If you play this game cooperatively, then you see how absurdly easy the game is.
It's almost making the point that if you set aside your differences and work together, we can get everything done, give everyone a good life, and have a ton of cash left over. You have to be deliberately irrational to fail in this game, as opposed to regular monopoly, where everyone but one person ends up bankrupt after being jailed several times.
Yes, but where is Monopoly dictatorship? Ya know, the one where nobody wins and the players attempt to undermine the ruling authority in an effort to be the last person to lose...
Isnt that how most monopoly games go? 3v1 with dark deals for bed rock as long as Mr highroller dies a miserable death?
Sick burn, Hasbro. This is why we like you. 😎
What is socialism to you
@@mynamesnotshanekid813 "when government does stuff." is their most certainly answer.
Ah yes, a game made by capitalists based on a game from socialists to mock capitalism, mocking socialism
*_Ironic_*
Wait so like... is this actually good? This seems like a very interesting game.
Probably not. Too many rules, and not a lot of permutation between games. Too much reliance on dice rolls. It's just as much a gimmicky mess as of monopoly, but this time with more rules.
not as a game, nor a depiction of socialism. its just propaganda
@@MakenaForest Nah it's a pretty accurate depiction.
It's going to end with the majority having gained nothing but suffering
Like socialism always has and will.
The only issue is that everyone losing is only an option and not an inevitability
@@MakenaForest Didn't ask, plus anime profile pic, plus cringe.
It seems good until you realize there are various Nuke options that make everyone lose the game, like making laps using the shuttle, or bidding a project a bagillion dollars to bleed the community fund dry.
If one person is winning, and you realize youre about to lose, theres nothing stopping you from pulling the plug and forcing stalemate.
Imagine if uno had a stalemate button and whenever anyone got down to 2 cards someone would nuke the game.
1848 was the year the communist manifesto was published, very nice touch 0:14
The irony that this was made to mock socialism, but it's a genuinely fun cooperative set up and doesn't portray the ideals negatively aside from if for whatever reason someone is ruining the game for everyone. (purposefully draining the fund.)
I suspect most people would not understand that the "community" funds is not a bottomless pit. They would think taking from it is a good thing.
@@Kornknealious I mean, it's not a bottomless pit here either. If it's empty you loose. Personal wealth only benefits you for as long as the common foundation remains. Don't put anything into your community and you suck it all dry for everyone; don't keep yourself afloat and you end up loosing anyway.
@@HuchiaZ Nope.
This looks like a lot of fun actually ! Interesting to try out
Screw the idea that I have to pay to get someone else out of jail
Okay, but... How does everyone win, like with socialism?
Only 1 player wins,no matter what version of Monopoli you play.
@@maestrulgamer9695 but qt least in this version there's the chance that ALL players are losers
People are competitive in nature. There is no such thing as "everyone wins". Someone will always be on top of others.
@@antongrigoryev6381 I'm not sure about you but plenty of people are willing to cooperate as well. The co-op game genre doesn't exist for nothing.
@@lily_littleangel Except real life isn't a game, and people who get to authority positions aren't a bunch of friends just wanting to have fun together.
“Place $1848 in the community funds”
*me realizing that number has more than one meaning*
not naming jail the gulag is a missed opportunity
So pretty much the same as regular monopoly, too many rules, lasts forever, will probably always be played wrong.
You can roleplay as a capitalist in this game by bringing a baseball bat to the game and smashing the board on your turn. this ends the game instantly.
Or stealing the bank's money before it begins and paying off players to try to make everyone lose.
That's just normal socialism.
Roleplaying a capitalist would result in a game of Stratego - if you win, everyone plays Boom Street. If you lose, everyone loses.
Then you play a round of regular monopoly until the next election happens and everybody decides to go back to playing monopoly socialism. Repeat until you start playing monopoly fascism
@Roniixx Tell that to 20th Century American Imperialism.
If you roll doubles a forth time after going to jail, you get "never existed," and you are kicked from the game
Ah, the 1989 card.
*1984 intensifies*
They should make a monopoly bureaucracy edition where more than half your money goes to the government and everyone loses. Have a nice day.
Starting with $1848 is the real cherry on top
I feel like this is making fun of socialism and also that it would be hilarious to intentionally screw over everyone
It's actually kind of brilliant because it attempts to criticize socialism using a game that was developed by a socialist as a criticism of capitalism
Although it doesn’t do very well just because it targets a very specific type of socialism that is, well, old for today’s standards. Where’s the tax? The Democratic workplaces?
Socialism itself is the joke, hard to parody a parody
As a Engelsian, I find it both hilarious and a solid "baby's first socialism".
10/10 would build my own again
$1848?
It's a reference the wave of working class people revolutions across Europe in and after 1848
@@osamaal-humaimidi1481 its cuz that was the year when the Communist Manifesto was published.
This game shows the "tragedy of the commons" problem. Where some resource is common (for everyone's use), for every individual the most profitable action is to exploit it as much as possible, before everyone else (because if they do the same, you'll get nothing). It usually ends with resource so drained it cannot regrow or it's destroyed just afrer it's rebuilt. So everyone is miserable in the long term. To stop this tragedy either:
1. Resource stops being common and it's divided among users, thus becomes private (expoiting resource you own beyond repair is not profitable long term). This of course has potential to create monopolies and other problems associated with that. Also not every resource can or should be splitted or splitting make a difference.
2. The members of community keep each other in check and exclude from themselves those who exploit. Because it requires the majority of members to be responsible and care about common good, it's quite utopian if comminity is large, unlikely.
3. Regulations are made to prevent exploitation. They are not always perfect and may favor those who are powerfull enough to influence the ones that made the regulations.
I think this is my favorite variant
I like this version. I know people that don't, but it plays differently.
You forgot the part with crumbling economies and food stamp queues
I literally thought this was satire, but if it were, they would use "gulag" instead of "jail"
REAL capitalists put as little effort into their products as possible. That maximizes the "energy expended to profit ratio". But it also means everything produced under capitalism is utter crap. Case in point.
A lot of lefties cried a thousand tears over this game when it first came out. Said it was an inaccurate depiction of socialism. I would have to agree because you can actually win in Monopoly:Socialism. In real-life socialism, you can’t!
Only 1 person can win in real life socialism no one else
All humor aside that does seem like a pretty fun spin on the usual monopoly stuff
"If you land on Go To Jail, then you immediately go to jail."
Why is it called jail and not gulag?
OK, Probably cause you wouldn't come out of a gulag
Strange. They seemed to have left out the “put dissidents in camps”, “stand in a bread line”, and “give all money to the elites” cards. Strange.
face the wall
@@famousplan2693 do not pass go
They also missed the "activist burned down your hospital" chance card.
You missed the rules on the violent pregame civil war, also the rules on how to print your own money if your in a pinch. It typically only makes things worse but still
Quick question, can players add or take from community fund outside the mentioned interactions in the video?
Sure, all they need is the gun token and they can take whatever they want.
Great explanation and game! I just thought of a sore loser *cheat*.
If 1 player has lots of money and only 1 chip left to win, a losing player (with little chance to win) can deplete the Community Fund, just so they all lose together.
Glorious!
Wow, ironic since monopoly was created by a woman where it critiqued and made fun of capatlism called “landlords”
Didn’t the woman steal the idea from her friend who was a professor?
@@WhaleofaT1me no
The landlords game, not landlords. It did not make fun of capitalism, it critiqued it and "educated people on the 'flaws'" of capitalism"
@@dubber1416 well yeah, I probably should be stated that
Yeah. It didn't really make fun. It just illustrated how Capitalism works.
"If you don't have enough for the auction, it comes out of the community fund" I LOLd so hard. The game is BROKEN!
What’s stopping you from spending all your money and just taking it from the community fun where everyone can help you develop
Duh, future promise of getting the same help, which would be screwed if you break the system and then fall back to poverty.
That little grin at the end xD