You must log in or register to comment.


ziq wrote

Not as long as a capitalist bee keeper steals all the honey and sells it.


zorblax wrote

Honestly making political analogies with animals(or computers or whatever) is kind of pointless. Different animals act differently, humans act differently, and so on.


hamjam5 wrote

I don't think beehives can be described as communism as long as the workers all serve a Queen.


________deleted wrote

Even if it's a voluntary hierarchy?


_ziq_ wrote (edited )

You could make the same argument for liberal society, that we 'choose' to work for others. In reality, it's the only way we can survive, so there's no real choice involved other than starvation vs non starvation.


sudo wrote

Not really - there are internal contradictions and exploitation in capitalism, but I doubt there are any in a beehive.


surreal wrote

i think volunteering is a somewhat complex concept for an animal to experience, it requires self-awareness. If you are talking about humans, no ty.


tnstaec wrote

Bees and ants are what's called "eusocial" (I'd say "hypersocial", but I'm not a biologist). On the opposite end of the spectrum are animals that only interact with other members of its species to mate. If we're comparing ourselves to other animal species, better to look closer to home. Our cousins the chimpanzees and bonobos live in small bands that are more-or-less cooperative in terms of gathering food, self-defense and raising young.

In bee colonies there is a strict division of labor and a clear hierarchy. Primates have much more mutable hierarchies, when they have them at all (bonobos don't). Individual members are much more important to the group as a whole. As with humans, pair-bonding is typically important, and a member is mourned when they die. Individual bees or ants are more like interchangeable cogs in a machine.