[flagged]
>Anspach created Anti-Monopoly in part as a response to the lessons taught by the mainstream game, which he believed created the impression that monopolies were something desirable. His intent was to demonstrate how harmful monopolies could be to a free-enterprise system, and how antitrust laws work to curtail them in the real world.
>In Anti-Monopoly II individual players choose to play either by monopolist or competitor rules at the beginning of the game. This version plays more like the actual Monopoly game in that it is based on the buying and selling of real estate. Among other differences, competitors charge lower rents and can improve any property they own at any time, while monopolists must own at least two properties in a group before building houses on them and charge much higher rents.
I've never played it, and I didn't like the cheap version I found at a store recently. But sounded like an interesting experiment. The reviews/ratings on BGG are fairly negative though[1].
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/286126/monopoly-socialis...
But I think it was pulled and not selling anymore. It was probably not very fun to play.
The trend in board games right now is legacy board games, where the game maintains state after each session. What you really want is legacy monopoly. Where the winners of early games maintain their monopoly, and face a proletariat uprising in future games, making it an asymmetrical struggle for the elites to maintain power.
You might be thinking about communism.
Regardless, substitute a couple of nouns and one could argue that game description isn't all that different than the capitalism version.