This raises more than a few questions in my mind:

We met as a teaching staff later that day. We saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation. We knew that the examination would have the most impact if it was based in engaged exploration and reflection rather than in lots of talking. We didn’t want simply to step in as teachers with a new set of rules about how the children could use Legos, exchanging one set of authoritarian rules with another. Ann suggested removing the Legos from the classroom. This bold decision would demonstrate our discomfort with the issues we saw at play in Legotown. And it posed a challenge to the children: How might we create a “community of fairness” about Legos?

So where did these Legos come from in the first place? This article really illustrates how socialism is truly a philosophy for five year olds, since when you are that age, you don’t produce anything yourself and are dependent on your parents for all your needs.

In the real world, however, things need to be produced, and those who produce them need to be compensated or they won’t produce any more. It’s amazing that we allow adults who have clearly never been responsible productive members of society to teach children at all.

As an aside, I saw this article linked in the comments of another post about pacifism. Isn’t it interesting how those who preach non-violence also tend to preach socialism? How they expect to institute socialism without violence is a mystery to me, though, since the very nature of taxation demands the explicit threat of violence to those who do not comply.