as if they were “shopping”, assuming the roles of sellers and buyers and thus learning the basic skills of economic behavior. It was impossible to find commercially produced Monopoly board games before perestroika .
Monopoly as an Object of Cultural Analysis
This article offers insight
at a popular level led to crude though naive antisemitic depictions of Judaism as having no access to forgiveness, or as something which had to be earned, though usually leaving the issue of Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s ministry of forgiveness unaddressed. The claim to monopoly in relation to
ideological monopoly over defining “how social life should be ordered and what the rules of the game should be.”
The degree to which a state is capable of exercising social control can determine its ability to mobilize the populace. In Migdal’s account, the varying levels of social control are
entertainment for the rich or a show for amusement-seeking persons with capital, but a school, a platform from which pure and noble art flows to people […]. People need music, people love opera […].” 10
On March 24, 1882, Tsar Alexander III instructed the Senate to abolish the Imperial Theater’s monopoly on
In 1433 the hussite delegation in Basle wanted to discuss the Four Articles according to the pacts of Eger (the “judge of Eger”), i.e. primarily according to the Bible. The delegates insisted on persuading the other party or on being persuaded by it; they weren’t willing to become a conciliar minority because the decision-making processes were based on the majority-principle. Furthermore, the Council offered a different “judge”: It was the Council itself, because the infallible Church beheld the “monopoly” of the Bible exegesis and transmitted this monopoly to the Synod. In this way it became less relevant to discuss the specific topics of the Four Articles. The Hussites, however, remained outside this doctrine, which was fundamental for the legitimacy of the conciliar decision-making process: they didn’t recognize this new judge and didn’t subdue to him.
This article examines the Leningrad Opposition of 1925 not so much as a regionally based schism in the party opposed to Stalin’s increasing monopoly of power, but rather as a cohesive expression of the city’s frustration with NEP and the economic hardships it imposed on the most industrialized city in the Soviet Union in the first seven years of Soviet power. Contrary to Western historiography on the Opposition, Zinoviev did not so much lead as align with the city’s leaders.
issue’s second article is “Do It Yourself Monopoly in the Late Soviet Period” by Professor Roman Abramov of the National Research University of the Higher School of Economics (Moscow). Abramov examines the role of the monetary world inclusion in the world of children’s games in the late Soviet period
trade policy. Which branches of gov- ernment hold the power? Which branches should hold it? What is the role of democratic forces? Here, William Long and Steven Elliott both maintain that "the Executive has a near monopoly of control" in recent U.S. policy making. Within the Executive branch, John
form groups of business shareholders, in order to accumulate capital for the lease of state monopolies. The concentration of financial resources made competition simpler, which explains why both influential and small businesspeople used this form of accumulation of capital. Historical sources mention
of dramatic art as “a forum for the exploration of a wide range of issues” (p. 2). Frame maps the development and dismantling of the Imperial monopoly over theatre alongside the growth of inﬂ uential private theatre enterprises, thereby making concrete the often repeated sentiment among literary