It's a miracle ....Habanos Celebrates Soaring Cigar Sales

[DaBoot]

Kinda back to the original topic of post. I mean the sales of Habanos is 100%. So good on the product they produce, sells out immediately worldwide. Wouldn’t you want your produced product to do the same. And if you can charge 2x across the board, and in some cases 3x for your product, wouldn’t you do the same. 
and any writer can spin the facts to match the narrative they want to portray in the article. They always spin to make it sound like they are doing better than the company is.

[El Presidente]

4 hours ago, DaBoot said:

Kinda back to the original topic of post.

[NSXCIGAR]

14 hours ago, 99call said:

Where we disagree is 'classical' interpretations of Socialism.     We will have to agree to disagree, as I see Socialism and Fascism has having no connecting line.

It's actually definitional, not interpretational. Classically described and defined, both are socialist economic models. What is called "socialism" or "democratic socialism" today is classically understood as a hampered market/welfare state "third way" model hybrid of sorts. For the sake of clarity think it's helpful to use the clearest and most specific terms which I feel the classical definitions are. When I see articles like The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists I see there are two definitions operating. What is called "socialism" today is not what was called socialism in 1940. No, Nazi Germany did not practice Scandinavian-style "democratic socialism" and no, the Bolsheviks weren't running a Scandinavian model. Both the left and the right today are trying to claim the term socialism for themselves. The conservatives use it more in the classical sense to bludgeon the left while liberals tend to use it in the modern sense and there seems to be a fight over the word. We all just need to get our definitions straight. 

As far as communism vs. fascism, yes, communism is more aligned with marxist/leftist ideology while fascism is more aligned with nationalist/right wing ideology, however in practice they produce similar results economically and are both equally likely to rule with fear and lies and have a dictator, etc. I see them as a distinction without a difference from an economic perspective. I think now we have places like North Korea that are hard to label either communism or fascism. But it is state control of the means of production, so IMO the classical definition of socialism is the most effective in describing it. 

[dgixxer252525]

This thread got really amusing over the last two pages. Reminds me of when I was in college and my professors would have these deep, intellectual, thought provoking, and ultimately completely nonsensical conversations that took us exactly nowhere. It’s funny to me because it reminds me of Ron Burgandy saying that he owns scores of leather bound books haha. 
 

This conversation is why there is a GROWING sentiment that young adults in the US are going to college now to get dumber, not smarter. There’s nothing any scholar can say to convince me that what Marx came up with was even worth discussing. Unless that scholar goes and loves with my family in Cuba for a couple of years before “schooling” me on the subject…

[helix]

https://communistcrimes.org/en/countries/cuba

Communist Dictatorship in Cuba (1959-present)

Before communism, Cuba ranked among the most developed Latin American countries, with living standards exceeding those of many European countries. Forty years of communist dictatorship have now led the country to the verge of collapse.

A communist system was gradually imposed on Cuba after a revolution against unpopular dictator Fulgencio Batista was taken over by Fidel Castro, Ernesto Guevara and other guerrillas-turned-communists. New rulers adopted a one-party system, suspended civil liberties and put strong pressure on the Church. Economy was nationalized and the society militarized.

To eradicate and prevent any anti-communist resistance, the rulers launched a wave of terror. According to the „Black Book of Communism“, death squads had shot at least 14,000 Cubans by 1970’s; in all, more than 100,000 have died or been killed as a result of the revolution. In 1960, Cuba established its first GULAG-style concentration camps.

By 1961, some 300,000 of the island’s 6.4 million inhabitants were detained in the camps. This and other acts of communist terror prompted mass exodus. More than half a million people fled the country in just five years and the total number of refugees and exiles now exceeds two million.

Cuba remains among the handful of officially communist states, although inevitable change is high on the local agenda.

[Bijan]

1 hour ago, dgixxer252525 said:

Reminds me of when I was in college and my professors would have these deep, intellectual, thought provoking, and ultimately completely nonsensical conversations that took us exactly nowhere.

Most people have these conversations over a couple of pints or a cigar.

In the end everyone wants to understand what is going on in the world and generally no one has a clue. Those professors just get paid for it.

1 hour ago, dgixxer252525 said:

This conversation is why there is a GROWING sentiment that young adults in the US are going to college now to get dumber, not smarter.

I don't think respectful online debate about history and especially communist and fascist atrocities is what makes people think that.

[Fuzz]

2 hours ago, dgixxer252525 said:

This conversation is why there is a GROWING sentiment that young adults in the US are going to college now to get dumber, not smarter.

That's because your colleges and universities are allowing people to take ridiculous courses like; Memeology, Pop Culture, Leisure Studies, Floral Management, Puppet Art, Tree Climbing, Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame, The Art of Walking etc.

[99call]

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I see there are two definitions operating. What is called "socialism" today is not what was called socialism in 1940

I think this is the problem.   Through my education system in the UK we are focusing on origin definitions of socialism, You keep using the world 'classical',  in the UK that would mean, that which was penned by Marx and Engels in 1847. What were their intentions, what where they trying to communicate.   From what I can gather when you say "classical definitions' you're referencing and American education system, and with a particular focus on economics. Thats not an attack, it sounds as If you know your onions economically.  My point would be, I do not care if some have a modernised interpretation of what socialism means,  if it no longer accurately reflects the meaning of the word/movement as originally intended, by the people that actually created it.

I think the core point of our disagreement, is that definitionally I'm talking about socialism and fascism as 'boots on the ground' movements,  and that in 1930s Germany Hilter's fascist movement was not a redistribution of wealth to the workers, it was not a dissolving of hierarchical structures of power, and the class system, it was not binary opposite. It was the military seizing means of production for the sole purpose of imposing a right wing, nationalist society based on racial 'purity'.  This did not seek to place the proletariat in power, merely replaced on set of bourgeoisie with another

Now if what your are saying is that in 2022 what's being taught in the American economic education system, is that the word 'socialsim' purely as an economic term has become something removed from what it actually means as a political lived experience, then I don't know what to do with that,  in many ways It would suggest it could be part of the problem of blurring lines, and why increasing there is a movement in the US that seeks to suggest Hitler was left wing. 

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Both the left and the right today are trying to claim the term socialism for themselves. The conservatives use it more in the classical sense to bludgeon the left while liberals tend to use it in the modern sense and there seems to be a fight over the word

Again living in Manchester, and having personally visited the cotton mills of child slave labour that Marx and Engels did, in my home town, I would argue that you have this is the wrong way round. The left are representing the principles actually written in the manifesto. and the right are trying to re-originate or 'classical-ize' a debased version of socialism, that affectively represents it as a non-functioning, dangerous enterprise thats inextricably linked to fascism and failed communism. 

I do not think it's possible to come to any agreement on this, and I think we are both products of education systems with contrasting curriculums / interpretations of history. Also we are coming at it with different focal points, yours economic, mine societal/boots on the ground. 

The last thing I will say is, in traveling around Europe and visiting concentration camps like Dachau.  They all document the Nazi party's persecution, hunting down, and extermination of socialist/communist party members/sympathisers.      I would proffer, thats a pretty strange thing to be doing if you are infect a socialist/communist party yourself!?

 

19 hours ago, DaBoot said:

Kinda back to the original topic of post. I mean the sales of Habanos is 100%. So good on the product they produce, sells out immediately worldwide. Wouldn’t you want your produced product to do the same. And if you can charge 2x across the board, and in some cases 3x for your product, wouldn’t you do the same. 
and any writer can spin the facts to match the narrative they want to portray in the article. They always spin to make it sound like they are doing better than the company is.

Coming back full circle, and back to my original comment on this thread.   A totally agree,  in the world of luxury or gourmand consumables, in many ways we can look back and say, in terms of the pain threshold of the market,  Were Cuban cigars just massively under priced?

As a consumer I'm gutted, and I'm gutted for anyone in the industry thats having a hard time, but as an indulgence, how does a fine cigar stack up against a fine champagne, or truffles, or caviar, or fois gras etc etc.     I look back now at the price of a box of Quai D'Orsay Coronas Claro in 2017 being $147 and think Jesus!! under $6 per stick.  Non Cohiba/Trinidad cuban cigar had to be one of the cheapest luxury indulgences in the world. 

How HSA are trying to spin what's going on, is by the by for me.   Are they a shit show?.....yes.    Are they making a success out of they luxury product hype game.....yes.    Could they multiply it by 30 if they provided their farmers/workers with the means to increase yield.......yes. 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

23 hours ago, 99call said:

My point would be, I do not care if some have a modernised interpretation of what socialism means,  if it no longer accurately reflects the meaning of the word/movement as originally intended, by the people that actually created it.

Marx isn't classical anything. A classic sophist perhaps. Classical economics and political economy is considered to have flourished in the late 19th to early 20th century and had no real American authors. Mostly German, Austrian and British. 

Both communism and fascism are the state control of the means of production. From that standpoint they are the same, hence why it is useful to have one definition for that economic dynamic. Until the 1970s that was everywhere and always referred to as socialism. 

My definitions are more specific and separate that from modern definitions of "socialism" that are often misconstrued and misunderstood. Clearly the Scandinavian-style welfare state is not state ownership of the means of production but many people today erroneously (in my opinion) call it "socialism." This is what leads to confusion so to avoid that I use more technically correct terms rooted in classical economics. My opinion is if everyone were to do that there would be less conflation and confusion. 

This is exactly what the left and right do. In my opinion the left should completely drop the use of the word socialism in reference to modern economic systems. They use it in the modern sense but those on the right--sticking to a more classical definition--are able to demonize the left for embracing the word. 

You can argue that the definition has changed but you can't change the fact that the definition in the classical economic literature was something else. This to me is just a recipe for disaster. If you asked anyone through 1975 what socialism was they would point to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. The word will forever have that connotation as it was what was taught in universities for most of the 20th century. 

I'm willing to bet you haven't heard the term mercantilism much despite that system probably being the most predominant in the west at the moment. Sometimes the old terms are the best terms. We tend to think everything that happens in the world now is new and original but believe it or not almost everything we deal with today has already been thought about or analyzed over the last 2000 years. 

 

23 hours ago, 99call said:

Could they multiply it by 30 if they provided their farmers/workers with the means to increase yield.......yes. 

I don't know about 30x but it is a legitimate question about maximizing yield. I honestly don't know how high the ceiling actually is. I think the main issue is probably equipment, fuel and fertilizer. It's hard to imagine nearly all of the Vuelta Abajo isn't being planted. It's pretty small. The farmers work very hard for little profit. But Cuba is very lucky they have pride, and tobacco is a cultural crop. 

Based on what I know, I would have to guess premium tobacco yields could probably increase by possibly 50% under ideal circumstances.

Not to mention the increase in QC you'd see under privatization. 

[99call]

On 9/20/2022 at 9:01 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

Marx isn't classical anything. A classic sophist perhaps. Classical economics and political economy is considered to have flourished in the late 19th to early 20th century and had no real American authors. Mostly German, Austrian and British. 

Both communism and fascism are the state control of the means of production. From that standpoint they are the same, hence why it is useful to have one definition for that economic dynamic. Until the 1970s that was everywhere and always referred to as socialism. 

My definitions are more specific and separate that from modern definitions of "socialism" that are often misconstrued and misunderstood. Clearly the Scandinavian-style welfare state is not state ownership of the means of production but many people today erroneously (in my opinion) call it "socialism." This is what leads to confusion so to avoid that I use more technically correct terms rooted in classical economics. My opinion is if everyone were to do that there would be less conflation and confusion. 

This is exactly what the left and right do. In my opinion the left should completely drop the use of the word socialism in reference to modern economic systems. They use it in the modern sense but those on the right--sticking to a more classical definition--are able to demonize the left for embracing the word. 

You can argue that the definition has changed but you can't change the fact that the definition in the classical economic literature was something else. This to me is just a recipe for disaster. If you asked anyone through 1975 what socialism was they would point to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. The word will forever have that connotation as it was what was taught in universities for most of the 20th century. 

I'm willing to bet you haven't heard the term mercantilism much despite that system probably being the most predominant in the west at the moment. Sometimes the old terms are the best terms. We tend to think everything that happens in the world now is new and original but believe it or not almost everything we deal with today has already been thought about or analyzed over the last 2000 years. 

Again, I think a massive problem, is the angles we are coming in on this at. yours being the terminology of cold economics, and mine more focused on what these movements are as lived experiences.    Now I'm not suggesting you can remove the economics from these arguments, but it was just to say, I think we are debating over different principles/grounds. 

Socialism in the UK today, and for as long as I, my Father, and Grandfather can recall, is much more anchored to Utopian Socialism and the lives of people like Titus Salt and Robert Owen.   If you said to a socialist in the UK, that it's internationally accepted that the economics of fascism are socialist, they would spit their tea out on the floor.    Again, I think you may be representing accepted principles in the US, and being accepted world over, and they simply are not. 

To me this is exactly the same as saying. "Well, very right wing authoritation capitalistism is fascisim........so err largely.....err lets just consider capitalism as a fascist enterprise".     Now,  I don't think the blurring of lines or, conflating of movements is helpful to anyone.     And I think it's responsible for allowing people to create revisionist History to its own ends. 

It's very interesting to actually read an interview with Hitler does by Liberty Magazine in 1923

VIERECK: Why do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?

HITLER: Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.

Now whilst part of this points to what you are saying, in that interpretations of socialism are vast and varied, I would argue, that throughout History, the likes of Hitler has used it to his own enterprise, i.e. "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal".   Hitlers interpretation of the "good of the general public" was to intern the working class masses into the military, to kill, the disabled, and non aryan sectors of society.        Ultimately him trying to wear the cape of 'socialism'. (as the interviewer alluded to)  is a nonsense.  a distortion, a way of conning the electorate of the German working classes. (even though he never actually had to win an election).     What he may have promised was a version of socialism......but that was a ruse........what he delivered was and ultra right wing, authoritarian, nationalist, racist dictatorship. 

It's like suggesting the point of Brexit, was to empower/enrich people in working class forgotten towns of England.......thats how it was sold...... in reality the only people it has made more wealthy are ex-pat disaster capitalists, the very people that argued to tirelessly for the vote........funny that.

Ultimately I do take on board, what you have said that there are many forms of socialism, and in time, in different parts of the world,  some have chosen to magnify or conceal its attributes (both good and bad).  What I do not accept, and do not think is of any benefit to the true ledger of history, is for people to cherry pick what they want, or to blur lines.

I do fear that in the next 50 years, due to idiots writing revisionist history on the internet (I do not include you in that), just to sooth their own political leanings, will paint Hitler to be a figure of left wing politics, and it makes me want to puke.     Not because that it offends my political beliefs, but that it's simply not true, and it's a personal affront to all the millions of victims of the holocaust, and all the brave men and women who laid down their lives to stop him. 

Again I think you personally are focusing on pure economics and how currently the study and terminology of that field is references in the US.  whilst I would argue thats also troubling, I do not believe that you personally are trying to contest that fascism is socialism as a boots on the ground human experience in Nazi Germany.     If you are then,  I think we better leave it there, as we will never ever agree. 

     

 

 

[Fugu]

58 minutes ago, 99call said:

It's very interesting to actually read an interview with Hitler does by Liberty Magazine in 1923

... but let’s not forget, AH isn’t particularly known for having been a scholar 

[NSXCIGAR]

On 9/21/2022 at 4:26 AM, 99call said:

Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common.

Yeah, I'm not sure Hitler has that right. Central Europe was feudal if anything. You could argue indigenous Americans has a semi-communal approach but communal property wasn't even attempted anywhere in Europe until the Bolsheviks. 

It seems Hitler is trying to claim the term for himself according to his definition. To be fair there wasn't really a fully formed concept of socialism in the economic literature until the 1940s. 

Not to mention holding lands in common is a tenet of communism. I have no idea what he thinks he's taking about. Again, Hitler not particularly known for his historical analysis. 

On 9/21/2022 at 4:26 AM, 99call said:

I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

Okay, Adolf... whatever that means. To be fair he did take the term Aryans from ancient Hindu Indians. 

On 9/21/2022 at 4:26 AM, 99call said:

Socialism in the UK today,

See, I wouldn't call anything in the west socialism. I just think it's most effective to discuss these systems in the west more specifically. I fully understand that when you say "socialism" you're referring to a moden "democratic socialism" and I don't have a problem with that other than it can get confusing. There are more economically accurate terms to describe the current systems of the west. By that I mean "democratic socialism" is many things to many people and uses a word that has been historically associated with communism and fascism. 

I also agree there is a technical difference between communism and fascism which is why it's typically described as Italian or German-style and communism Russian-style. I can go along with right wing or left wing but I think the only reason fascism is thought of as right wing is because of a seeming embrace of private property and business although those are both effectively nationalized through totalitarian state control. Classical economics considers both systems distinctions without a difference. 

[Bijan]

To @NSXCIGAR national socialism was closer to a European socialism of the (extremely far) right than a communism of the right.

Any economic control the Nazis exerted should be seen through the lens of a war economy. The US and UK through the war had rationing, government dictating production to private industry, all kinds of controls on money, etc.

Viewed through that lens the Nazis were not particularly controlling of the economy. They were more totalitarian through every other means, media control, social control, etc. Closer to China of today than the USSR of yesteryear.

This is why I described China now as fascist.

There were a number of wealthy Nazi era industrialists. Many remained wealthy after the war. Who were the wealthy Soviets? There may have been some powerful ones, or some rich or well placed ones. But the Russian oligarchs had to seize the wealth after the previous system fell.

@NSXCIGAR

Edit: @99call

I haven't finished reading your entire quote. But yeah, what Hitler said 😭

And again keep in my mind 100 years ago you could be 100% socialist from the left and be sexist and racist. Those were not incompatible. Many progressives were in  favor of eugenics even in the West. And that the Nazis moved against the mentally ill and/or socially undesirable as one of their first groups to liquidate (which was done in the west here and there in terms of forced sterilizations, though not outright extermination).

Edit 2: I am not saying the Nazis were of the left, they were clearly of the right but that back then even on the left racism, sexism, eugenics, etc were common place.

 

On 9/21/2022 at 9:26 PM, 99call said:

what he delivered was and ultra right wing, authoritarian, nationalist, racist dictatorship. 

Stalin delivered an ultra left wing, authoritarian, internationalist, anti racist, dictatorship.

2/5 match, 3/5 differ

Though the 2 of the other 3, internationalist and anti racist are somewhat debatable, as they russified much of the Soviet republics, but obviously compared to the Nazis they were very far from racist or nationalist. And there's always that argument that at that extreme of totalitarianism how different is ultra right and ultra left.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, Bijan said:

Viewed through that lens the Nazis were not particularly controlling of the economy.

I think looking at the Italian system is instructive there. I think you need to examine both the Italian and the German system to get a full picture of fascism. 

[Bijan]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I think looking at the Italian system is instructive there. I think you need to examine both the Italian and the German system to get a full picture of fascism. 

I will do that as I know much less about the Italian system. But it would stand to reason the Italians had less of a war economy. Which goes back to what I was saying. One also can't ignore the national characters involved for what that's worth.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Bijan said:

I will do that as I know much less about the Italian system. But it would stand to reason the Italians had less of a war economy. Which goes back to what I was saying. One also can't ignore the national characters involved for what that's worth.

It goes back to my dislike for getting into the weeds with communism vs fascism. It tends to lose the forest for the trees. Aside from it being an interesting academic exercise I just don't think it's useful when analyzing modern conditions. Totalitarianism can come from both the left and the right. If you get into the left vs right you won't see the train of oppression coming from your own side. 

When distilled down both systems and the "hybrid" systems of many modern countries have state control of the means of production at their core. Left and right doesn't really matter to me. And I doubt the Chinese or North Koreans are sitting around wondering if they're being oppressed by the left or the right.