---
For those that didn't read the article, here are the resulting rules:
- All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.
- Lego people can be saved only by a “team” of kids, not by individuals.
- All structures will be standard sizes.
I didn't read the whole thing. I read through the kids being jerks, then the the town was destroyed, then the teachers started running experiments on the kids.
That was the part that really got me. Teachers running unsanctioned experiments to emotionally provoke my children. That is unacceptable
The vitriol people are projecting on such a benign game really makes me think society would be served well if many of the commenters here had participated in similar games as children themselves.
I had also been in Norway that people call socialist but is actually quite capitalistic.
Most socialists have an idealization of what collectivism "should be". They compare "real capitalism"(an implementation of capitalism in reality) against an ideal socialism that have never existed and never will on the real world.
It is only in their minds. Don't tell them about Venezuela or Cuba, China or URSS because they were not the real thing of course.
But they don't admit that Capitalism could also be ideal and perfect.
If you want to compare it to communist autocracies, you'll need to at least tell us how they're at all related to each other.
No, it's about using lego to teach teaching kids about capitalism and power structures.
> Exploring power, ownership, and equity in an early childhood classroom
> These children seemed to squirm at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power that “giving” holds. The children denied their power, framing it as benign and neutral, not something actively sought out and maintained. This early conversation helped us see more clearly the children’s contradictory thinking about power and authority, laying the groundwork for later exploration.
Seriously, count how many times the article mentions "power", and count how many times it mentions "share".
Why? What would that even tell me? Toy-hogging is one of the earliest and simplest examples of a power imbalance a kid will see. Teaching the kids about the power imbalance directly instead of just decreeing "you have to share" is outstanding teaching, and certainly much more effective. These are some lucky 8-year-olds.
And what does this have to do with communist autocracies?
Uh huh, it sounds like you agree with me now? The article isn't about sharing lego. It's about using lego to teach kids about society, power structures, and capitalism. The article lays the ideology motivation of these teachers bare, it isn't hiding anything. You don't need to read between the lines because the article is quite open about all of this. This article is not about "teaching children to share Lego toys" as you previously claimed. It's about "Exploring power, ownership, and equity in an early childhood classroom". That's what the article says the article is about.
I do agree with you, that's what the article is about! I also believe that it's a good thing to teach children about when they're young. Things make a lot more sense when you understand the structures of power that created them. I kinda wish I had figured it out a bit sooner than I did.
They're good lessons to teach kids. Do you disagree with that, or did I just misjudge what you were saying?
There was nothing in there about teaching kids about capitalism. It was about exploring the kid's understanding of ownership and power, which are far more fundental concepts that predate capitalism by thousands of years.
"...the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
Is is disheartening that any critique of power, class or ownership becomes synonymous with being anticapitalist. These seem like crucial topics to discuss if you want a well functioning capitalist society.
Even more of us believe that a small minority should not be allowed to hoard all resources for themselves while others have nothing.
Makes me wonder if this kind of hyperbole is just the natural outcome after decades of politics labeling all kinds of situations the "Next Nazi Germany" [0] or "Worse than Hitler" [1], often to justify foreign intervention.
Maybe Godwin's law actually predates the Internet.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-33603620080515
[1] https://apnews.com/article/c456d72625fba6c742d17f1699b18a16
Answer: It's your strawman.
Is the man with a sword a specific person? What are you talking about?
Communist regimes are known for the opacity and media suppression. It's not like they'll tell the whole world about it.
And contrary to what is believed, Cuba is not totally sealed off the world and still relies on capitalism to survive (cigar, rum and tourism), which mainly prevented it from going full North-Korea.
https://www.therichest.com/shocking/the-15-worst-atrocities-...
I don't believe that socialism and collectivism are suitable fixes to poverty or income disparity.
Put another way, I suspect we share values but disagree on policy.
"This policy proposal might be helpful. Is it? Let's see: The policy is socialist in nature + socialism killed millions in authoritarian communist regimes = this policy will kill millions. Therefore we must not allow the policy to succeed."
I can't imagine how they ignore the flaws. People do this, without exaggeration, unconditionally for every socialist policy.
> Therefore we must not allow the policy to succeed
Oh, but we do allow it to succeed. There are no laws against communes and worker collectives in the US. Any group can form one. And many have - thousands of them.
They all failed on their own.
You and your like-minded colleagues are welcome to give it a try. Nobody is going to try to stop you. You can ask Bernie to supply the funds (he's rich) and be your leader. I only ask that you come back in a year and tell us how it went.
You allowed the minimum wage to be increased? You allowed us to require companies to give maternity leave? You allowed us to expand SNAP benefits? If so, it's news to me.
You mean (ridiculously simplified) taking turns and sharing?
There’s nothing inherently different between these things.
I've seen socialists before using fixed pie economics in classrooms to extol the evils of free markets.
The Monopoly game was invented by a socialist to show how bad free markets are. Of course, it's a fixed pie game.
I agree that most things aren’t fixed pie. But some of the most important things in life are, and people who get lucky in that regard have a massive advantage.
We do it all the time:
1. multistory buildings
2. vertical farms
While we’re not fabricating land (yet), we are certainly manufacturing desire.
Nope. We use energy to transform valueless things into ever more valuable things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
I should also note that zoning laws and other regulations make the real world into a fixed pie game. And those are often completely apolitical, their only ideology being NIMBY.
according to the teachers. they are not a reliable unbiased source here. they are seeing everything through a marxist lens of exploitation.
but we don't have the kulak-kids' side of the story.
These teachers, on the other hand, took it as an opportunity to teach socialism and collectivism.