Friday, October 14, 2016
Week 8 Prompt: The Queue, State Socialism and Economies of Redistribution
Now that you've all played the board game "Queue," what are some of the specific institutional advantages, constraints, or simply other forms of economic life that this economic system of redistributions generates? What is valuable in this system? How are social relations entangled/embedded in this system of exchange?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Queue" was interesting in demonstrating how unfair, a supposed 'equal,' socialist society can be in reality. While the game demonstrates that such a society, in theory, rations enough of each item or good for enough for all of the population, it is largely not the case. This economic system of redistribution creates a great level of competition among citizens, where people are willing to wait in lines for hours, use connections to their advantages (or perhaps 'borrow a baby') to cheat the system in order to get the desired or needed goods and items. The game demonstrates that having connections to authority will greatly benefit the individual; in a place where money is essentially worthless, having ties to those in power can allow you to have the upper hand. The system is valuable, however, in that the chances of any given household having a surplus of any item (or even money), is very low, if not completely eliminated. The system is very interesting in giving participants very little control over the products they 'buy', from where they obtain those products, and when they are able to obtain the items they need. Moreover, a redistributive economy such as this really eliminates the potential to really "own" any property in its simplest sense, which eliminates the competition to own. Yet, as mentioned previously, there is competition in attempting to obtain goods from the government, so while eliminating competition in one sense, competition is heightened in another.
ReplyDeleteWhile playing, this board game "Queue" reminded me of a recently read book "The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality" by Branko MIlanovic where the writer showed people from USSR encountered a severe inequality in reality despite the systems aimed bringing equality for all! Though the message was very clear in the book, I could not understand how that could happen? Interestingly, this game actually gave me the explanation how this could happen! The game is about the Communist Poland where every person used to get a ration card with specified items with specified numbers they can obtain. From whom? Obviously, state. That indicates, state actually used to exercise all the authority to manage and distribute the resources among persons. Thus, at the very beginning, the concept of 'level-playing-field' is altered. After decades of real struggle, mostly all of the nations under communism experienced increased level of inequality rather equality. In those countries, the economic system of redistribution generated sheer uncertainty among lives of thousands. For instance, if a family needs milk, and family members are placed in the 'milk-queue' for days, they were not sure if the delivery will come or not? This ‘theoretically-equal-practically-unequal’ system provoked many ill competitions not among the market, but among the consumers of the market as everybody needed to ensure that they stay in the first place of queues of any store. In addition, emergence of a black market is also a consequence of that ill competition. However, not every person could enter or benefit from the black markets but only those with a strong negotiation power. Therefore, if something was valuable in the system, that was the power and capacity of negotiation with others! How will you directly/indirectly negotiate with your neighbors, black market or the persons in the queue, that could sometimes give you leverage over others. Even if you are good at negotiation, often you end up gaining nothing as the turn outs of event can sometimes be beyond anticipation (i.e. sudden closing of stores/ no delivery of goods at all). Thus, in turn, it was the state only which had the strongest negotiation power, and against whom no person had any power at all, thus, going back to the inequality among different members of the country.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the institutional effects of the economic system of redistribution, there was another byproduct. That was the various level of social relations embedded in the system. It cannot be said there was only positive sides or negative sides rather a culmination of two. On one hand, this system provoked communal solidarity, where neighbors used to (occasionally) help other neighbors, keep places for the family and friends in the queue, information sharing etc. Moreover, gender relations and gender division of labor also went through changes due to this system. On the other hand, carrying baby of others for getting benefit, creating chaos in the queues for securing personal benefits are some of the examples of the opposite side. However, it is to be mentioned, social relations were deeply embedded in that economic system of redistribution. In last but not the least, that system became dysfunctional as it could not achieve the profound objective to create equality among everyone rather negative competition among population was severe which was experienced by the players of the board game "Queue"!
After playing the board game Queue, it is much easier to understand how much connections are valued in a socialist system. We saw many constraints in the ways other characters manipulated the lines for stores, showing how favoritism is so influential in a society that is supposed to demonstrate equality for all. Most advantages came about from what secrets you know (e.g- what is being delivered next) and who you know, those connections can help you get products faster or more quantity. This shows how easily this system can be manipulated and corrupted, the stronger the state control, the easier it is to take advantage of sectors and industries and hurt the community. Based off this game and the socialist ideology, relations seem to be the most important part of society. Economic prosperity seems to be dependent off relationships, however this society seems to make relationships extremely vulnerable especially if there is ever economic stagnation or turmoil.
ReplyDeleteThe board game we played in class details life in Poland towards the end of the Communist era.It demonstrates the tension shopping under an economic system of redistribution. After playing the game, I have a better idea of the anxieties faced by those living in a similar socialist system. You really have to be in the loop and attentive if you want the best chances of receiving the products you need. I also feel like the system could also be manipulated based on who you know whether or not you had a child with you. I can't imagine living in a society where I couldn't just run out to the store to grab whatever it is I need it and when I need it. This game, though entertaining, is consider as a real life situation.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed playing Queue. I find it to be a eastern communist version of Monopoly, but without the effects of destroying friendships. The game points out a lot of fundamental flaws-- or advantages depending on which side of the sword you are on-- in the Queue system. The form of economy in Queue shows that equal distribution is difficult. People find ways to cheat the system. If you know who works at certain shops or distributors, you can get tipped off on when shipments are coming or if they are delayed. Waiting in line also gives rise to the struggle of holding your position, which the game can constantly manipulate against your interests. Alternatively, this gives rise to an opportunity for Black Markets to arise. Constraints on supplies gives them an increased value, and an exponentially high demand within illegal markets.
ReplyDeleteThis game shows how you can cheat the system, or be cheated by the system. In the paragraph above, i mentioned your point of view depends on which side of the sword you are on. While the system, like many things in life, can be manipulated depending on who you know, it alternatively hurts you if you do not know anyone. The more connections you have, the better advantage you have within this kind of economy. Therefor, you are holding the sword. However, if you do not make a lot of connections and struggle to get what you need within the Queue, then you are being struck by the sword. The game ultimately proves how unfair and corrupt the Queue can become.