Actually, I did find it very interesting.
On the one hand, the kids are given a big Lego set and told to get stuck in. Not too much later, there is a large, thriving Lego town, and all is well. There's bosses, there's builders, and more importantly, there's lots of Lego Houses of various shapes and sizes.
The kids played it by their own self-generating rules as they went along, and it turns into a model of current societies and towns, with big houses, small houses, powewr-brokers, ownership, power-struggles etc etc etc.
The teachers then psychoanalyse the whole process, indoctrinate the kids through questioning and social engineering and the result is that the kids decide (of course, with the help of the social engineers) to work as collectives, with everyone owning a piece of their own 'collective', and the main result being that all houses will be the same size, collectively owned.
So, from the mouths of babes, and without input, you get a Lego and social model that closely reflects the reality - one that reflects human nature - a natural position. As soon as you engage in social engineering, you get collectivisation, uniformity, and an unatural position that is basically boring, lacking in vision or originality, and EVERYBODY is poor. There is no place or allowance for personal improvement, expansion or choice, with everybody being locked down in the new social grid.
I give you, on the former - naturally occuring greed, capitalism, innovation and advancement that produces a thriving, interesting and unique result, versus the latter result of uniformity, lack of innovation and no room for personal achievement.
The former is capitalism, the latter socialism. In reality, not Legoland, the former far outperforms the latter, and this is why communism has failed globally, and the most succesful countries, as measured by average individual wealth and freedoms are the capitalist ones with a long history of it.
