Das Capitalism?

The UK government has issued guidance to schools, requiring them not to use any material that can be perceived as being 'anti-capitalist' (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/27/uk-schools-told-not-to-use-anti-capitalist-material-in-teaching). Schools are told that they should not use material from particular organisations (as yet unnamed), even if it is entirely legal and non-inflammatory, as it 'might imply support' for those bodies. The arrival of the internet, of course, makes it very difficult to control access to information (and we have already seen, in other areas, how prescribing information can actually make it a 'recruiting agent' for some young people). I worry, however, how the Education Department is going to define 'capitalism'. Is anyone who wants to curb environmentally-damaging consequences of industrial or commercial activities, 'anti-capitalist'? Would that make it educationally inappropriate for reference to a body that objects to destruction of the rainforest, creating new runways at an airport, polluting water bodies with the waste from farming, releasing massive amounts of 'greenhouse gases', mining or extracting oil in a protected area etc, etc 'anti-capitalist'? It is clear that the UK government has been irritated by some environmental organisations (such as Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace). To use part of the actual Education Department document to schools, they are told not to use material from groups that show an "endorsement of illegal activity; and a failure to condemn illegal activities done in support of their cause". The government, of course, decides what is illegal and what is not (and there was an attempt by the police to put Extinction Rebellion on to a list of prescribed groups that included terrorists). It is perfectly easy (especially in the present circumstances) to make groups of a certain size illegal and to ban the carrying of placards. Non-violent protest, whilst it might be inconvenient to some people, is often the only way to make clear one's objections to certain actions or non-actions. If these same actions or non-actions are enacted to generate money for some people, does this make nonviolent protest 'anti-capitalism'? Surely we cannot be going down a route where the next generation are taught that any 'legal' means of making money is good but they must be 'protected' from any suggestions that this unfettered activity should, in some cases, be curbed? Perhaps we should revisit the debate about smoking and its link to lung cancer? Although the link is generally accepted now, if the Department of Education rules applied then, the anti-smoking lobby could have been labelled 'anti-capitalist'. It seems to me that children should be taught that there are always several sides to issues and the ability to make financial profits is only one of them.