> given that the actual process here ... amounted to good critical thinking lessons

It clearly, expressly, and obviously was not. The definition of indoctrination is:

> the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

But sure, I can explain what I find objectionable about the indoctrination.

From the actual article, this was not 'critical thinking lessons'. It was carefully manipulated by the adults around them to push them to a particular set of beliefs, i.e. indoctrination. E.g.:

> mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive.

They disagree with the 'society' the children built, and want to impose their values on it instead.

> 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.

Perfect: the children are in emotional distress, this is prime time to indoctrinate. Never let a crisis go to waste, right?

> Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

Expressly stating their intent to impose a set of views on these kids, not teach them to derive their own values.

> We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice.

And again expressly stating their intent to impose their views on the kids.

> “We don’t want to rebuild Legotown and go back to how things were. Instead, we want to figure out with you a way to build a Legotown that’s fair to all the kids.”

You don't get your Legos back unless you organize them in a way we agree with. More than that: you need to come up with an option that's satisfying to us. It's grotesque.

> Our intention was to create a situation in which a few children would receive unearned power from sheer good luck in choosing Lego bricks with high point values

Imposing their (provably false in this case) views on how power is derived, again, except even more subversively via a 'game'.

> Carl: “I don’t like that winners make new rules. People make rules that are only in their advantage. They could have written it simpler that said, ‘Only I win.'”

Immediately proceeding this quote, the author lauded two children for making rules that were clearly more 'fair'. Note that they did not correct Carl here, because the children hadn't fully adopted their views yet.

> To make sense of the sting of this disenfranchisement, most of the children cast Liam and Kyla as “mean,” trying to “make people feel bad.”

The lack of self-awareness here is startling. But I guess not strictly an opposition to their methods here.

> The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly.

Or, you know, the system is fair and the winners won while the losers lost. But, again, a digression.

> As teachers, we were excited by these comments.

"Our indoctrination was working!"

> Then we can interact with those worldviews, using play to instill the values of equality and democracy.

Their definition of equality. And there was no democracy involved in any of this. It was forced upon them from a small group of dictators (the teachers) and they were manipulated until they were indoctrinated to accept it.

That about sums up my objections.