[iDC] Notes Toward a Theory of Ludocapitalism

[Ryan Griffis]

Keith's last post about the role of games in constructing models for  
political economies, or rather models for existing within them  
reminded me of Natalie Bookchin and Jackie Stevens' project from a  
few years ago - AgoraXchange - that tried to consciously set up a  
role-playing environment that would lead to directed world-building  
exercises, based on Stevens theories of the problems with nation- 
states and kinship conventions.
http://www.agoraxchange.net
One thing that i'm wary of however, is the reification of the  
activity of "play" as a non-ideologically defined activity. Sure,  
everyone would probably agree that "play" is channeled through  
ideological forms, but the notion of "play" itself is rarely  
questioned, or its boundaries interrogated. What is the function of  
separating the activities of "work" "leisure" and "play" in a context  
where most of us here aren't really producing anything necessary to  
continue our existence or even contribute much to it (i think that's  
probably a safe assumption, but maybe not?). And as is all too clear  
in the evolving sphere of networked "play", one person's game is  
another's livelihood (or destruction). But what is meant by saying  
that someone "is playing" as opposed to, well, anything else -  
"working" "learning" "socializing" etc.
With Keith's anecdote about betting/gambling, i start to wonder about  
the naturalization process of "play" and "risk-taking" as it is often  
related to other forms of survival and the kinds of language that is  
used to connect survival (bare life) and the political economy we're  
(again, most of us here) operating within. As Keith suggests, games  
do a good job of making invisible the politics of the rules, and for  
those that excel at a given game, usually the rules become "second- 
nature" (thus invisible) themselves.
The question of "if LETS really works or could replace capitalism, we  
should ask what political education people get from participating,  
however briefly" is a really good one, i think. One thing that seems  
to stand in the way though, is that most effective games become  
effective through ideological inscription, no? So unless you mean to  
suggest a kind of psychoanalytic focus-group kind of survey of  
people's participation, it's difficult to ask what kind of political  
education "players" get from a given game, as their conscious answers  
are likely to be different from the information that actually becomes  
effectively implemented.
i am not so versed in theoretical/analytical/historical work being  
done on games in these contexts, so perhaps i am missing a big part  
of the conversation, but is there any work that does address these  
concerns? i'd definitely appreciate anything that people have found  
useful.
(and thanks for the points to the info about India and TRIPs Keith -  
the collusion between NGOs, AID and TNC/patent activity is also of  
importance, as with Microsoft and the Gates foundation parallel  
development of relations in India while Linux made major inroads  
there, Monsanto has also had a philanthropic/"educational" presence.)
http://c3.unu.edu/plec/plecserv/index.cfm? 
template=view_plecserv.cfm&message=203
best,
ryan