Stuart 
I haven't played Monopoly for many years now. The last game was with three housemates at university. One housemate was winning and really enjoying his triumph over the rest of us. So I suggested to my other two housemates that we form a cooperative. We would let each other off rents on our properties. The standards rents would apply to anyone not in the coop. And you could leave the coop if you wanted. None of this is forbidden in the rules of Monopoly because it has little market regulation.
Within a remarkably short space of time the monopolist had lost his dominance and the rest of us had flourished. He went bankrupt and the rest of us agreed to end the game as joint victors. I felt as though we perhaps played it more to the spirit of the original game that Monopoly had been derived from and found a non-monopolist solution.
A few years ago I shared this story on Twitter and then had angry libertarian men complain that I'd cheated and had actually made a cartel, not a cooperative. They weren't happy that I pointed out that no rules had been broken. In fact it was the lack of market regulation in Monopoly that allowed us to do what we did. Plus we did it fully openly and the fourth player was able to join our coop if he'd wanted.
I still don't agree that we were a cartel as there was no secrecy, deceit, or defrauding going on. We were very open about forgiving rent and doing better deals within the coop than the 'official' prices outside the coop. Anyway it was funny to see libertarian men be unhappy about something happening due to very limited market regulation (no rules saying you couldn't discount rent or undercut the guide prices).
Although Monopoly is so often presented/framed as an individualistic game of capitalist dominance, it doesn't actually have to be played like that. The system might strongly encourage that but the players can behave differently. A better way is possible.
Cheeseness@slowe I'm sure others have mentioned this, but it strongly brings to mind that the original game Monopoly was based on was created to educate and spark discussion about exactly that kind of stuff.
I've not dug into the specifics of the rules much, but my understanding is that what we know today as "Monopoly" was the more or less the first half of the game, and the second half uses an alternative ruleset intended to be more anti-monopolist
@Cheeseness They have. :) But, yes, we were perhaps more exploring part of the purpose of Elizabeth Magie's original than the way people are usually encouraged to play it. I've definitely preferred games that are deliberately cooperative since then. I feel we sort of transcended Monopoly that day.
@slowe I think there's also something very empowering about tweaking rules to "find your own fun." Something that's a big part of Monopoly's heritage as well!
Brendan Jones@slowe @Cheeseness absolutely, once you've played better games it's hard to go back, isn't it? I can't believe I wasted my youth on Monopoly and Risk - such miserable, vindictive games!
For anyone wanting to expand, try some games that are:
cooperative https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2023/cooperative-game,
semi-cooperative https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2820/semi-cooperative-game or
negotiation https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2915/negotiation
@slowe @Cheeseness Some notable favourites:
Sidereal Confluence https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/202426/sidereal-confluence
Diplomacy https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/483/diplomacy
Spirit Island https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/162886/spirit-island
Gloomhaven https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/174430/gloomhaven
