Putin Government Reportedly Bans “Communist Monopoly” Game As “Anti-Russian”

250px-Gra_KolejkaRussia under Vladimir Putin has seen a dramatic rollback of civil liberties, including free speech and free press. The government has little tolerance for anyone voicing opposition views, but the most recent action after a board game reached a new low for the Putin regime. The game is Kolejka or “Queue” which widely popular as a type of “Communist Monopoly.” It requires players to fight for limited resources under the prior Polish communist regime. In an ironic move, the Putin regime has banned the game for its critical depiction of communism — thereby showing the striking similarity between Putin’s regime and the one depicted in the game.

In the game, you try to buy everything on your shopping list. Yet, everything is in short supply in the planned, centralized economy. The game includes historical materials as well as the black market that raged in the Soviet economy.

Russia’s consumer watchdog Rospotrebnadzor declared the game “anti-Russian” and excessively critical of the Soviet system. The government told the company, Trefl, to either remove the direct historical references from it or risk getting the product banned. The company (operating under the name IPN) declined and the game was pulled from Russian shelves.

So a game that depicted the authoritarian rule of the Soviets have been banned by centralized authoritarian rule of Putin. That certainly makes a point.

61 thoughts on “Putin Government Reportedly Bans “Communist Monopoly” Game As “Anti-Russian”

  1. Here’s some evidence for you.

    African Americans now attend the University of Mississippi without protection of the National Guard. Today, there are even some African American members of Sigma Chi.

    In 1950, nobody concealed carried on the UT-Austin campus. Come July, they will be permitted. Diversity just keeps rollin’ along!

  2. KCF

    Here’s some wonderful nostalgia: women couldn’t go to Princeton, Yale or Harvard – or most any Ivy League school!

    Yale and Princeton didn’t accept female students until 1969. Harvard didn’t admit women until 1977 (when it merged with the all-female Radcliffe College). With the exception of the University of Pennsylvania, which began accepting women on a case-by-case basis in 1876, and Cornell, which admitted its first female student in 1870 (also offering admission under special circumstances), women couldn’t attend Ivy League schools until 1969 at the earliest. Brown (which merged with women’s college Pembroke), Dartmouth and Columbia did not offer admission to women until 1971, 1972 and 1981, respectively. Other case-specific instances allowed some women to take certain classes at Ivy League institutions (such as Barnard women taking classes at Columbia), but by and large, women in the ’60s who harbored Ivy League dreams had to put them on hold.

    You’re done, kaput, fini, KCF.

    • EdwardM – you poor little special snowflake. You have no idea of the philosophy of the private boys or girls school. Some still exist. None of that has to do with diversity. Hillary Clinton graduated from one of those private girls schools.

  3. And then there was in loco parentis….

    Though in loco parentis continues to apply to primary and secondary education in the U.S., application of the concept has largely disappeared in higher education. This was not always the case.

    Prior to the 1960s, undergraduates were subject to many restrictions on their private lives. Women were generally subject to curfews as early as 10:00, and dormitories were sex-segregated. Some universities expelled students—especially female students—who were somehow “morally” undesirable. More importantly, universities saw fit to restrict freedom of speech, on campus, often forbidding organizations out of favor or with different views from speaking, organizing, demonstrating, or otherwise acting on campus. These restrictions were severely criticized by the student movements of the 1960s, and the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley formed partly on account of them, inspiring students elsewhere to step up their opposition.[4]

    The landmark 1961 case Dixon v. Alabama was the beginning of the end for in loco parentis in U.S. higher education. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Alabama State College could not summarily expel students without due process. However, that still does not prevent students who exercise their rights from being subject even more legal action despite having done nothing other than violate an arbitrary rule

    Your turn, KCF….

    • EdwardM – every school I went to in the 1960s had some kind of in loco parentis. At ASU, if you wrote a hot check off campus they would expel you. They got around the expelling part by suspending you. They could do that without a hearing.

  4. Hmmm:

    Politically diverse??? Sooo, when I see “Sex” on a form, I should think Republican or Democrat??? Or, when I see “politcal affiliation”, I should think Male or Female???

    “I’m with KCF on this one. Much more POLITICALLY diverse back then.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. I know it’s crazy, but I do believe that allowing women to attend university would promote some diversity of opinion as opposed to when they were not in attendance.

    But that’s just me. And women are just 50% of the population. Nothing significant.

    And, I do suppose one might suspect that diversity of opinion might also increase on campus once African Americans were enrolled.

    True, the African American population is not nearly that of women so you may find their contribution to diversity unremarkable. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what you think.

    The game is done, KCF. You lost.

  6. EdwardM is just a recycled old timer spewing the same old horse manure that used to dominate this blog. I think I know who he is. He’s used several names but the same stale, lies.

  7. EdwardM came to the wrong blog to try and spread his lies. JT posts a steady stream of Fascist 1st Amendment violating acts by college administrators and students.

  8. Nobody has gone to prison or even been arrested on any college campus for speaking unpopular ideas. They have not lost jobs for their views, as was done to a number of friends of mine. Just because you don’t get much support in the student body hardly means the campus is not free. It simply means your ideas are outlandish.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s