Earth's recent climate spiral.

[The Grand Nudger]

That is, as far as I'm concerned and as far as what I mean by the term capitalism, the end all be all. Private ownership for profit. If however, the many capitalisms all reflect local circumstances, then this too would be an explanation of why the term "western capitalism" is meaningless. Or any other cardinal direction or political convention we might care to mention. As there are many different local circumstances within "the west".

I, personally, don't put much stock in the idea that capitalism is harmful to the planet. That's the wheelhouse of people who believe, for whatever reason, that the best way or only way you can make money is by wrecking the place. In truth, there's no profit for the owner in burning their own house down. It may be the case that the owner can burn their house down and shove that -cost- off on someone else...but that's not capitalism, just another scam. Like crypto.

I suspect that what Leo means when he says "western capitalism" is not exclusively western, or actually capitalism. Short sighted profiteering and feudal looting, for example, which we neither invented nor do we hold any patent on - though it's certainly something we're very good at. Speaking of short sighted feudalism, I think it's ludicrous to try and use climate change to cash any personal political checks whatsoever. The climate doesn't give a shit about peoples ancient and foolish gripes with the other tribes. Cultural complaints are as meaningless as cardinal capitalism, in this regard. The idea that consumerism, for example, is harmful to the planet, isn't actually true. Consumption is not the problem -and good luck getting people to change by telling them to accept less. Production is the problem. Mass consumption of sustainable and renewable products is not only a non issue, it's a goddamned solution.....but mouthing the words tickles the sensibilities of people who think their own habits can be meaningfully distinguished from it and held to be superior to it.

Perhaps environmental conservation would be better served by arguing that we all could and should have more... of nicer stuff? Things that make the producer more profit, things that the consumer can have more of. Or, ofc, we can all continue babbling about the great western satan as we burn our own homes down in a desperate bid to get a few of his dollars.

[Anomalocaris]

To say private ownership for productive capital is the end all be all of capitalism is a little like saying Bible or the word of Jesus is the end all and be all of Christianity.     To the true and shallow believer the Bible or the word of Jesus is all that matter, where as to those who wish to analyze the effect and care if the society really benefits, it is everything about Christianity that is not the word of Jesus that really matter, and for capitalism, it is how capitalism is actually manifested as an influence on the entire society that matters. 

Nor is Western capitalism itself a monolithic thing either across time or space.   If one looks below a very thin layer floating atop the surface, then capitalism as a wholistic manifestation in a society, or style of capitalism if you will,  mean something quite different in Germany or France,  or Italy, to say nothing of the Scandinavia, compare to what it is meant in the post-Reagan US or post-thatcher britain.   Indeed capitalism take as a wholistic society wide thing, not just narrow sense of private ownership, meant something very different in the US and Britain of the post war era than it does now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nor is Western capitalism itself a monolithic thing either across time or space.   If one looks below a very thin layer floating atop the surface, then capitalism as a wholistic manifestation in a society, or style of capitalism if you will,  mean something quite different in Germany or France,  or Italy, to say nothing of the Scandinavia, compare to what it is meant in the post-Reagan US or post-thatcher britain.   Indeed capitalism take as a wholistic society wide thing, not just narrow sense of private ownership, meant something very different in the US and Britain of the post war era than it does now.

QED, these are all "the west". I've heard that people also make things for profit in other places..and that consumers are very keen on aqcuiring these things from them.

[Anomalocaris]

Nor is Western capitalism itself a monolithic thing either across time or space.   If one looks below a very thin layer floating atop the surface, then capitalism as a wholistic manifestation in a society, or style of capitalism if you will,  mean something quite different in Germany or France,  or Italy, to say nothing of the Scandinavia, compare to what it is meant in the post-Reagan US or post-thatcher britain.   Indeed capitalism take as a wholistic society wide thing, not just narrow sense of private ownership, meant something very different in the US and Britain of the post war era than it does now.

QED, these are all "the west".

And there are different styles of capitalism in just the west.

[Anomalocaris]

Nor is Western capitalism itself a monolithic thing either across time or space.   If one looks below a very thin layer floating atop the surface, then capitalism as a wholistic manifestation in a society, or style of capitalism if you will,  mean something quite different in Germany or France,  or Italy, to say nothing of the Scandinavia, compare to what it is meant in the post-Reagan US or post-thatcher britain.   Indeed capitalism take as a wholistic society wide thing, not just narrow sense of private ownership, meant something very different in the US and Britain of the post war era than it does now.

QED, these are all "the west".  I've heard that people also make things for profit in other places..and that consumers are very keen on aqcuiring these things from them.

Yes, and how much a few can make a profit at the expense of many, and what type of expenses that can be, before either they are stopped, or they are guillotined, or are invited to voluntarily contribute 80% of their ownership share in their privately owned capital asset for a small consideration of not being sent to an re-education camp, are quite different from place to place.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed, perhaps we should explain this to people moaning about "western capitalism".....? Consumerism is an explicit rejection of such an arrangement.

[Leonardo17]

1) This is a very important point. The solution to that is
a) To consume less. Western style of capitalism is dictating us that we must have more in order to be more. Not only is this a completely false idea but it is also very harmful to the planet.
b) To switch to a cyclical economy. We must move away from the “use it than throw it” model of consumption to more durable goods that can be repaired, upgraded and then recycled ideally to 100% percent. Today we can’t even repair our smart devices when they are broken. There are even people who switch devices every month or so. So this cannot go one. Our economic model is fundamentally wrong as Greta puts it.
 
2) I can’t agree more. Everyone has probably heard about Sam Bankman. I am not saying that it should be banned. I’m only saying that we also have to cut down on our energy consumption right now. Besides Crypto is something that is being used in the darkweb in the buying of human organs, assault rifles, drugs, virgin Caucasian girls etc. In Kazakhstan they have crypto currency mines working on Coal power.
 
   So I understand it if an Indian family needs coal energy to do their homework in the evening, to heat themselves in winter or to run a textile plant. But is Crypto currency one of these basic needs we cannot live without? I don’t think so. There has to be more political will to realize our climate goals.

There's no "western style" of capitalism.  It is what it is, everywhere, and no different anywhere.  OFC no one needs crypto, but crypto isn't actually being mined "in the west" - because we don't have those beautiful dirt cheap energy prices.  Crypto is mined in the developing world.  That's sort of the point.  Crypto is a thing you can do to make money especially where western enegery rates arent in effect.  To turn cheap offbrand energy into our currencies.  Because no one wants funny money from those places.  They want to turn burnt material into cold hard USD.  Crypto is a petro-currency just about uniquely suited to shitting on people from not-here-istan.

You might not be ready to say it, but I am, and always have been.  Crypto is a fucking scam.  It should be banned.  I've been burning wood for years to heat my house, why am I not a crypto gazillionaire?  Is that not how it works...cuz it looks like that's how it works...

Still I have one objection: Crypto is also being mined in places like the north of Canada in a way that is based on geothermal energy. Crypto factories actually need a lot of cold air (or air conditioning) because of huge amount of computing spaces (supercomputers) that are necessary to produce this electronic currency.
 
So my objection is: There are people with no A/C in the middle of summer and in some countries like mine people are buying natural gas almost on a daily basis because heating is too expensive.
 
So the word “western” here could perhaps be replaced with “20th century”. This is 20th century style capitalism. We can’t just allow anything simply because people are making profit and have a business model going on. So that’s why I am not completely opposed to crypto. I’m not an economist. There are probably Pro’s to the subject too. But I believe that we in the 21st century should be able to ask these questions. Why? Because the costs of climate change is already greater that all crypto-currency profits put together.
 
And there are more fundamental questions too. Questions like “Is it OK that the 1% richest of the planet control more than 50% of the resources in this planet?”. These are tabu questions for 20th century liberalism. But if you look at all those waves of migrant workers from south-America or sub-Saharan Africa, I think that even the most liberal persons will agree that there are changes to be made in the very economic models of our societies.

[Leonardo17]

There's no "western style" of capitalism.  It is what it is, everywhere, and no different anywhere.  OFC no one needs crypto, but crypto isn't actually being mined "in the west" - because we don't have those beautiful dirt cheap energy prices.  Crypto is mined in the developing world.  That's sort of the point.  Crypto is a thing you can do to make money especially where western enegery rates arent in effect.  To turn cheap offbrand energy into our currencies.  Because no one wants funny money from those places.  They want to turn burnt material into cold hard USD.  Crypto is a petro-currency just about uniquely suited to shitting on people from not-here-istan.

You might not be ready to say it, but I am, and always have been.  Crypto is a fucking scam.  It should be banned.  I've been burning wood for years to heat my house, why am I not a crypto gazillionaire?  Is that not how it works...cuz it looks like that's how it works...

There certainly are different styles of capitalism.   The existence of private ownership of means of production and service for the purpose of profit making is not the end all abs be all of capitalism.    Its local style reflect local culture, politics, and economic tradition that may go as deep, or deeper, as shocking as it may sound to the American audience, then elements of capitalism as neo-liberal Americans understand it.     So in practice each style of Capitalism is the local manifestation of the effects of the existence of private ownership of means of production and service for the purpose of profit making under the influence of local economic, social and political culture.

No one is opposed to liberalism itself. But I think we are in an era of a more controlled-capitalism.
 
One example to this is China. Many European companies can make greater profit by staying in China. But because of political reasons, they are choosing to return to Europe and re-industrialize their own countries.
 
Second example: Germany is rebuilding it’s entire power grid system since at least 2017. The reason: İt wants the energy transition. Back in the days it could still rely on cheap Russian Gas. But it decided to move away from gas and move toward clean energies. (That’s something I would love to see happen in my own country)
 
Third example: The sanctions on Russia. Within record time, Europe has accelerated it’s transition to clean energies and has invented new ways to replace Russian energy and it did that without any major power cuts etc.
 
These are all Keynesian style economic interventions. So the market is there, but we don’t simply let the market decide on absolutely everything. And the results can be quite good.
 
One fundamental thing that I believe we will witness in this century: I think newer generation will understand better than we did that “having more is not synonymous with being more”. But this is a more philosophical element so we may deal with it later.

[Leonardo17]

That is, as far as I'm concerned and as far as what I mean by the term capitalism, the end all be all.  Private ownership for profit.  If however, the many capitalisms all reflect local circumstances, then this too would be an explanation of why the term "western capitalism" is meaningless.  Or any other cardinal direction or political convention we might care to mention.  As there are many different local circumstances within "the west".  

I, personally, don't put much stock in the idea that capitalism is harmful to the planet.  That's the wheelhouse of people who believe, for whatever reason, that the best way or only way you can make money is by wrecking the place.  In truth, there's no profit for the owner in burning their own house down.  It may be the case that the owner can burn their house down and shove that -cost- off on someone else...but that's not capitalism, just another scam.  Like crypto.

I suspect that what Leo means when he says "western capitalism" is not exclusively western, or actually capitalism.  Short sighted profiteering and feudal looting, for example, which we neither invented nor do we hold any patent on - though it's certainly something we're very good at.  Speaking of short sighted feudalism, I think it's ludicrous to try and use climate change to cash any personal political checks whatsoever.  The climate doesn't give a shit about peoples ancient and foolish gripes with the other tribes.  Cultural complaints are as meaningless as cardinal capitalism, in this regard.  The idea that consumerism, for example, is harmful to the planet, isn't actually true.  Consumption is not the problem -and good luck getting people to change by telling them to accept less.  Production is the problem.  Mass consumption of sustainable and renewable products is not only a non issue, it's a goddamned solution.....but mouthing the words tickles the sensibilities of people who think their own habits can be meaningfully distinguished from it and held to be superior to it.

Perhaps environmental conservation would be better served by arguing that we all could and should have more... of nicer stuff?  Things that make the producer more profit, things that the consumer can have more of.  Or, ofc, we can all continue babbling about the great western satan as we burn our own homes down in a desperate bid to get a few of his dollars.  

I agree with most of this but I still have one objection:
 
There is a trend in western nations. Middle income level teenagers are buying textiles that are designed to be used one time only. These clothes like real haute-couture dresses but the quality is so limited that it can only be used one or two times. And they say it’s crazy how especially young people are investing into clothes that are than being thrown away (because it’s impossible to recycle these clothes. And these used clothes are than sent to Peru where they can rot in the desert.
 
So here is an example of an attitude that has to change (on consumer level). If I / we want to consume something, industrials will provide us these stuff. So while there is a lot of very cheap and good looking textile in the place where I live, I buy higher quality stuff in a more limited number. Then I always try to wear these things until they literally start disintegrating. Than I turn these textile into swabs or I donate them for poorer people to use them.
 
This is just one example. Another example is the example Britain who became the first country to ban single-use plastics. Plastic doesn’t disintegrate in nature. So why are we still producing plastics when it’s not absolutely necessary?  
 
Third: I am a part of the Save Soil movement that is led by an Indian man called Sadhguru. In this movement we are asked to write to our politicians, representatives, ministries etc on the issue or organic elements in soil. The reason for that is that politicians are there to give us whatever it is we ask from them. If you blindly ask them for more food / more money etc. You’ll create Jair borsonario like leaders who will destroy the Amazon for profit. If you are clever like the Germans, You can make the Green party a major party in the current coalition and have a government that responds to Russian aggression by accelerating the energy transition.
 
So in the end it’s us. The consumer actually.

[Leonardo17]

QED, these are all "the west".  I've heard that people also make things for profit in other places..and that consumers are very keen on aqcuiring these things from them.

Yes, and how much a few can make a profit at the expense of many, and what type of expenses that can be, before either they are stopped, or they are guillotined, or are invited to voluntarily contribute 80% of their ownership share in their privately owned capital asset for a small consideration of not being sent to an re-education camp, are quite different from place to place.

See, being spiritual that’s where I think spiritualism kicks in. What you are describing here is a typical attribute of the human ego (as it is described in almost all schools of spirituality). The Ego always seeks some sort of satisfaction somewhere “outside”. It sees the spiritual practice of turning inward and trying to find satisfaction on the inner level as a complete invention. So the Ego is like the Mick Jagger song of “I can’t get no satisfaction”. It always wants more, and more, and more, and even when it has “more” it’s still unhappy so it wants to buy Twitter or colonize Mars or whatever other insanity. That’s the very nature of the human Ego.
 
The solution: There are now teachers who are initiating 8 year old kids to Yoga and meditation (It’s not such an out of reach practice after all). Things like Yoga, Tai-Chi, Aikido etc. are now available in almost all good college campuses in the world. These are just some examples but there are also things like mountaineering, trekking, martial arts, animal therapies, Kama Sutra etc. that people are increasingly turning to in a way that is different from the purely materialistic approaches of some earlier eras like the 80’s.
 
Today many rich people know that that new Yatch, the new smat watch, that holyday on Turks and Caios islands is only going to make them feel good for a limited period of time.
 
So I see this as a fundamental, much needed change too. I had this mystical friend once who told me that “the only thing you truly need is this much of food (showing me his hand) + some amount of water”. And in fact. He is right. That’s all we need to exist in this planet.