how the ‘new craze’ morphed from socialist critique to capitalist dream
- Written by Lisa J. Hackett, Senior Lecturer, Sociology & Criminology, University of New England
Monopoly is the best-selling licensed board game of all time, popular since its 1935 release when “the new craze” swept the world.
It has remained a staple, with over 390,000 copies sold in Australia to date.
Its transformation from an economic critique to a capitalist icon highlights its historical evolution and adaptability.
A game with a message
Monopoly’s roots trace back to The Landlord’s Game (1903), created by Elizabeth Magie to critique monopolistic land ownership.
It featured two sets of rules – one emphasising wealth accumulation, the other wealth distribution. The aim was to demonstrate how different policy levers, taxing income versus taxing land, affect economic outcomes of players.
It was based on economist Henry George’s proposition for a “land value tax” or “single tax”. Under this regime, people would keep all they earned, with public funds raised from land ownership instead.
The two sets of rules in the Landlord’s Game demonstrate how wealth is either concentrated in the hands of landlords (taxing income) or is more fairly distributed across society (taxing land).
In 1935, a man named Charles Darrow removed the game’s socialist critique (the version that taxed land), renamed it Monopoly and sold it to Parker Brothers. The game was now focused on the accumulation of real estate until one player remained, having bankrupted their fellows.
The game thrived during the Great Depression, offering an escapist fantasy of financial success.
In 1935, Parker Brothers paid Magie US$500 (US$11,800 today) for the rights to her game, ensuring their ownership of Monopoly was unchallenged. As part of the deal, they released her original game, but it failed to gain traction with players.
Not everyone welcomed its capitalist themes – Fidel Castro famously ordered all Monopoly sets in Cuba destroyed in 1959
Playability and house rules
Philip Orbanes, former vice president of research at Parker Brothers, argued a good board game must have clear rules, social interaction and an element of luck. Monopoly ticks all three boxes.
Despite this, Monopoly is notorious for causing arguments. Hasbro (who bought out Parker Brothers in 1991, acquiring Monopoly in the process) found that nearly half of Monopoly games end in disputes, often over rule interpretations. Monopoly is the game most likely to be banned, or see a particular player banned, on game nights.
A group of sunbathers having a smoke and playing a game of monopoly at an open air pool, 1939.
Fox Photos/Getty Images
Monopoly’s rules have been adjusted and manipulated as players have sought to overcome the inequities in the game. Another of Hasbro’s surveys found 68% of players admitting to not having read the rules in their entirety, and 49% said they had made up their own rules.
These “house rules” include things like cash bonuses on Free Parking or modifying auctions to make the game more engaging.
Identity and nostalgia
Monopoly’s use of real-world locations makes it adaptable to local markets.
The original version reflected Atlantic City’s socio-economic hierarchy. When Waddingtons released the English version in 1936 under license (the same version which would go on to be released in Australia in 1937), Atlantic City’s wealthy Boardwalk and working class Mediterranean Avenue became London’s Mayfair and Old Kent Road, respectively.
The game can also serve as a bridge to former geographies. The 1980s Yugoslav edition remains a link to the past for those who lived through that era, recording changing political geographies and cultural shifts.
More than 240 players compete for the British Monopoly title at Fenchurch street station, London, in 1975.
WATFORD/Mirrorpix/Mirrorpix via Getty Images
Monopoly is a flagship brand for Hasbro, worth an estimated US$272m in 2018. Part of Monopoly’s success lies in its licensing strategy. The board layout is extremely flexible, allowing for localised adaptations to be made to suit different markets, without any substantial change to the game play.
There are believed to be over 3,400 different versions of Monopoly issued, from classic city street layouts to popular culture imaginings.
It is this aspect that attracts collectors; world record holder Neil Scanlon owns 4,379 sets of Monopoly (he is still searching for the Cronulla Sharks set).
Monopoly reflects the world’s economic systems, embodying both the dream of wealth and the realities of financial inequality.
It has been studied by economists and educators as a tool for understanding capitalism, wealth accumulation and market control.
The game originally meant to critique monopolistic practices became a celebration of them. Each player has the opportunity to accumulate vast wealth, reflecting the promise of capitalism: where anyone can enjoy riches as long as they work hard enough.
Magie’s message was leveraged by Federal MP Andrew Leigh in his 2023 critique of the growing concentration of business monopolies in Australia. Leigh noted how monopolies affected Australian families and how the Albanese government had “increased penalties for anti-competitive conduct, and banned unfair contract terms” with the aim of creating a fairer society.
Enduring popularity
In 2025, Hasbro introduced digital banking versions – though many players lament the feel of physical wads of cash.
The game continues to be a favourite, ranking as the top childhood game among Baby Boomers, Gen X and Millennials – and fourth for Gen Z. The sense of nostalgia was strong among all groups, not surprising as board games were found to be an integral part of family bonding.
Monopoly has evolved from an anti-capitalist critique into a commercial juggernaut. While it has faced criticism for erasing its socialist origins and its reliance on luck, its ability to reinvent itself has ensured its lasting appeal.
As both a cultural artefact and a competitive game, Monopoly remains firmly embedded in board game culture.
Authors: Lisa J. Hackett, Senior Lecturer, Sociology & Criminology, University of New England
