IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2021 - 10

Editorial

up from baselessly claiming that any election that
they lose must have been rigged, but only just.
It is, however, bizarre that proposing to abolish
capitalism should be considered an " extreme political
stance. " As with the discussion of " democracy, " there
is a definitional problem of capitalism. What sort of
capitalism cannot be abolished: oligarchic capitalism,
state-guided capitalism, big-firm capitalism, or entrepreneurial capitalism [22]? What about laissez faire
capitalism (no or minimal regulation or state intervention), vulture capitalism (asset stripping), or crony
capitalism (i.e., organized crime)? Or state capitalism,
the term that has been used to describe the economic
arrangements of China? Although that term has also
been used to describe national economies that have
effectively privatized profit and socialized risk, such
as the United States. More importantly, where does
this leave critiques, such as those of Marx [23], Piketty
[24], and proposals for alternate economic systems
[25], [26]? How can those works even be discussed
without being labeled as attempts to " abolish " or
" overthrow " capitalism (of whatever " flavor " )?
The most disturbing aspect of this statutory
guidance is the entrenchment of capitalism as an
economic framework that cannot be challenged.
Capitalism is an idea, a way of organizing transactions or economic activity, which can work well or
badly. Trying to legislate against the education of
alternatives is a form of thought control, but consistent with many other attempts to diminish critical
thinking at all stages of education [27].

Opposition to the right of freedom of speech,
freedom of association, freedom of assembly, or
freedom of religion and conscience.

Again, fine-sounding words but actions belie
them. Generally, the ongoing concern of the United
Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU is the accompanying threat to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which a condition of
membership of the EU. Then the only two European
countries that would not be signatories of the ECHR
would be the United Kingdom and Belarus. Like the
threat to democracy, the opposition to human rights
is not coming from " without, " but directly from the
government defining this statutory guidance.
More specifically, the listing of XR on the Prevent
Antiterrorism program, equating climate change
activism with terrorism, shows how poorly drafted legislation and tendentious categorization can be used

to stifle legitimate free speech, critical thinking, and
legitimate civil disobedience [28].

The use or endorsement of racist, including antisemitic, language, or communications.

What reasonable person would not be against
this, except perhaps the Prime Minister of Great
Britain, who has a " long record of controversial
comments about women, gay people, and ethnic
minorities " [29].

The encouragement or endorsement of illegal
activity.

With this point, the statutory guidance seems somewhat repetitious, so perhaps it is worth also repeating
comments about repudiating international treaties,
unlawfully proroguing parliament, and so on.
But there are two further points. First, an activity
can be legalized, but that does not necessarily make
doing it " right. " So, for example, there is absolutely no
corruption in the United Kingdom, but there are a lot
of consultancies, and a lot of that seems to be very ...
" friendly. " Yet the government seems to be unwilling
to reveal the extent of that " friendliness " [30].
Second, an activity can be proscribed, but that does
not necessarily make doing it " not right. " A mature
democracy knows when to persist with the pretence
that conventional laws are like physical laws and cannot be broken (i.e., the rule of law), and when they can
(or should) be broken, that is, almost every civil right
movement in the last 2000 years. It takes a particular
brand of ignorance, shamelessness, and insensitivity to
potential consequences to undermine the rule of law
abroad while stifling civil disobedience " at home. "
*

A failure to condemn illegal activities done in
their name or in support of their cause, particularly violent actions against people or property.

This guidance is of a type with the simplification
of macroeconomics to home economics (i.e., that
managing the economy of a country is equivalent to
managing the economy of a household10). The implication and image here are of personal violence. However, as with economics, there is a microlevel and
a macrolevel, where at the macrolevel, there is not
just the " trickle down aggression " [31] of the culture
wars, as mentioned above, but other forms of violence perpetrated by a ruling elite against its citizens.
So, listed under this state-sponsored macro-violence
10

Hint: they are not equivalent.

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2021