Bees and communism

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I don't know whether this is the right board to post this in... but here goes.

i think bees are most communal creatures on the planet. no other species works so hard to ensure the survival of the entire populus.

every bee has a specific purpose, and lives only to fulfill that purpose. the drones exist only to mate (the best job, by far). the queen exists only to bear offspring. the guards exist only to protect the colony. the seekers exist only to search out new food supplies. the foragers exist only to harvest these supplies.

every bee has its job, and each is equally important to the survival of the colony; no bee has a higher rank than any other bee because each one is equally important (not even the queen: without the worker bees to support the colony, and without the drone bees to ensure procreation, the queen has nothing and will die - the queen doesn't build the colony, nor protect herself (though she can - queen bees have an unbarbed stinger), nor feed herself).

hell... bees even gather together in the winter and shiver to create enough heat for the colony to survive until the spring.

...

that's why i have alot of respect for traditional (prior to the arrival of the european) native american culture. the indians, as we white folk like to call them, worked together to survive. they lived in pretty much perfect harmony until the white man arrived: none suffered, none were opressed - each indian had his purpose, and fulfilled it as best s/he possibly could.

though... the indians didn't embrace a democratic way. i believe the term for indian government is either archeocracy or presbyterocracy - rule by elders. that, i disagree with... but hell, it worked just fine for them.

[MrDoom]

Bees and ants are incredible creatures in that respect; the "monarch" isn't really much of a monarch, all members of the hive are equal and have a purpose within the group. They are the perfect natural "communists".

[midnight marauder]

Heh. This is quite the topic!

One of the first books I read when I first became interested in leftism was the classic Mutual Aid by Petr Kropotkin. It's a great book, and the beginning deals a lot with the idea of mutual aid among animals.

Here's some quotes I found on this topic from the online text of it:


The first thing which strikes us as soon as we begin studying
the struggle for existence under both its aspects--direct and
metaphorical--is the abundance of facts of mutual aid, not only
for rearing progeny, as recognized by most evolutionists, but
also for the safety of the individual, and for providing it with
the necessary food. With many large divisions of the animal
kingdom mutual aid is the rule. Mutual aid is met with even
amidst the lowest animals, and we must be prepared to learn some
day, from the students of microscopical pond-life, facts of
unconscious mutual support, even from the life of
micro-organisms. Of course, our knowledge of the life of the
invertebrates, save the termites, the ants, and the bees, is
extremely limited; and yet, even as regards the lower animals, we
may glean a few facts of well-ascertained cooperation. The
numberless associations of locusts, vanessae, cicindelae,
cicadae, and so on, are practically quite unexplored; but the
very fact of their existence indicates that they must be composed
on about the same principles as the temporary associations of
ants or bees for purposes of migration. As to the beetles, we
have quite well-observed facts of mutual help amidst the burying
beetles (Necrophorus). They must have some decaying organic
matter to lay their eggs in, and thus to provide their larvae
with food; but that matter must not decay very rapidly. So they
are wont to bury in the ground the corpses of all kinds of small
animals which they occasionally find in their rambles. As a rule,
they live an isolated life, but when one of them has discovered
the corpse of a mouse or of a bird, which it hardly could manage
to bury itself, it calls four, six, or ten other beetles to
perform the operation with united efforts; if necessary, they
transport the corpse to a suitable soft ground; and they bury it
in a very considerate way, without quarrelling as to which of
them will enjoy the privilege of laying its eggs in the buried
corpse. And when Gleditsch attached a dead bird to a cross made
out of two sticks, or suspended a toad to a stick planted in the
soil, the little beetles would in the same friendly way combine
their intelligences to overcome the artifice of Man. The same
combination of efforts has been noticed among the dung-beetles.


The same is true as regards the bees. These small insects,
which so easily might become the prey of so many birds, and whose
honey has so many admirers in all classes of animals from the
beetle to the bear, also have none of the protective features
derived from mimicry or otherwise, without which an isolatedly
living insect hardly could escape wholesale destruction; and yet,
owing to the mutual aid they practise, they obtain the wide
extension which we know and the intelligence we admire, By
working in common they multiply their individual forces; by
resorting to a temporary division of labour combined with the
capacity of each bee to perform every kind of work when required,
they attain such a degree of well-being and safety as no isolated
animal can ever expect to achieve however strong or well armed it
may be. In their combinations they are often more successful than
man, when he neglects to take advantage of a well-planned mutual
assistance. Thus, when a new swarm of bees is going to leave the
hive in search of a new abode, a number of bees will make a
preliminary exploration of the neighbourhood, and if they
discover a convenient dwelling-place--say, an old basket, or
anything of the kind--they will take possession of it, clean
it, and guard it, sometimes for a whole week, till the swarm
comes to settle therein. But how many human settlers will perish
in new countries simply for not having understood the necessity
of combining their efforts! By combining their individual
intelligences they succeed in coping with adverse circumstances,
even quite unforeseen and unusual, like those bees of the Paris
Exhibition which fastened with their resinous propolis the
shutter to a glass-plate fitted in the wall of their hive.
Besides, they display none of the sanguinary proclivities and
love of useless fighting with which many writers so readily endow
animals. The sentries which guard the entrance to the hive
pitilessly put to death the robbing bees which attempt entering
the hive; but those stranger bees which come to the hive by
mistake are left unmolested, especially if they come laden with
pollen, or are young individuals which can easily go astray.
There is no more warfare than is strictly required.

The sociability of the bees is the more instructive as
predatory instincts and laziness continue to exist among the bees
as well, and reappear each. time that their growth is favoured by
some circumstances. It is well known that there always are a
number of bees which prefer a life of robbery to the laborious
life of a worker; and that both periods of scarcity and periods
of an unusually rich supply of food lead to an increase of the
robbing class. When our crops are in and there remains but little
to gather in our meadows and fields, robbing bees become of more
frequent occurrence; while, on the other side, about the sugar
plantations of the West Indies and the sugar refineries of
Europe, robbery, laziness, and very often drunkenness become
quite usual with the bees. We thus see that anti-social instincts
continue to exist amidst the bees as well; but natural selection
continually must eliminate them, because in the long run the
practice of solidarity proves much more advantageous to the
species than the development of individuals endowed with
predatory inclinations. The cunningest and the shrewdest are
eliminated in favour of those who understand the advantages of
sociable life and mutual support.

Certainly, neither the ants, nor the bees, nor even the
termites, have risen to the conception of a higher solidarity
embodying the whole of the species. In that respect they
evidently have not attained a degree of development which we do
not find even among our political, scientific, and religious
leaders. Their social instincts hardly extend beyond the limits
of the hive or the nest. However, colonies of no less than two
hundred nests, belonging to two different species (Formica
exsecta and F. pressilabris) have been described by Forel on
Mount Tendre and Mount Saleve; and Forel maintains that each
member of these colonies recognizes every other member of the
colony, and that they all take part in common defence; while in
Pennsylvania Mr. MacCook saw a whole nation of from 1,600 to
1,700 nests of the mound-making ant, all living in perfect
intelligence; and Mr. Bates has described the hillocks of the
termites covering large surfaces in the "campos"--some of the
nests being the refuge of two or three different species, and
most of them being connected by vaulted galleries or
arcades.(10) Some steps towards the amalgamation of larger
divisions of the species for purposes of mutual protection are
thus met with even among the invertebrate animals.

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/mtlad10.txt

Really a terrific book. Petr goes on to talk of ants, other insects, different varieties of birds and all types of animals as having some communal aspects.

I don't know if there's particularly much to be gained from this idea in terms of theory, but it's definitely intersting!

[Rollo]

Ants are the same. They all work perfectly to keep the colony alive and fight off intruders. Altho you could argue the queen lies around all day eating. but she needs to produce ants all day. Imagine giving birth all day every day or collecting parts of dead animals.

[chimx]

kropotkin would be so proud of you rollo.

[EwokUtopia]

We must take heart from this, and make sure the capitalists never get magnifying glass WMD's, for they will surely crush the revolution.

[LSD]

Bees aren't communalistic, they're eusocial; and if you can't figure out what the difference is, ask yourself whether yor vision of communism includes mass sterilization.


that's why i have alot of respect for traditional (prior to the arrival of the european) native american culture. the indians, as we white folk like to call them, worked together to survive. they lived in pretty much perfect harmony until the white man arrived: none suffered, none were opressed - each indian had his purpose, and fulfilled it as best s/he possibly could.

What romanticist nonsense!

Native Americans were neither "harmonious" nor "perfect" and they most certainly were not free of oppression or suffering. "Indians" were just as bloody as anyone else and just as exploitive. They just lacked the technological development to do it as well as the Europeans.

But if you're wondering what might have happened had they been allowed to develop that technology, just have a look down at Mezoamerica where your friendly neighbourhood "indians" constructed vast and complex economic empires by which they oppressed and exploited those they concquered.

Sorry, but the noble savage myth is bullshit and always has been. Capitalism isn't a "white man's crime", it's just a natural stage of human economic development. And if the Americas had never been occupied, they would have developed it regardless.

Native Americans were victims of a horrendous crime, one of the worst in history; but they're just as human as anyone else and they're products of the same social forces.

Communism isn't about glorifying the primative, it's about looking to the future. Don't get trapped in antiquity!

[Comrade_Scott]

"Native Americans were neither "harmonious" nor "perfect" and they most certainly were not free of oppression or suffering. "Indians" were just as bloody as anyone else and just as exploitive. They just lacked the technological development to do it as well as the Europeans" true words that i was watching this thing on history channel and it said that the indian "fat cats" did some sort of state funded terrorism to keep the majority workers in line... they i belive are not the romantic figures we sometimes make them out to be. but thats just me.

[apathy maybe]

See also Brave New World.

[JKP]

We're not here to create a society of "bees and ants"; we celebrate individuality and differences.

[Jazzratt]

Why the fuck is this not in chit-chat? It's just a load of bullshit abut what somone thinks of ant and bee society - as if that had any bearing on how human societ should be run. This thread is bollocks.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 31, 2006 06:51 pm
I don't know whether this is the right board to post this in... but here goes.

i think bees are most communal creatures on the planet. no other species works so hard to ensure the survival of the entire populus.

every bee has a specific purpose, and lives only to fulfill that purpose. the drones exist only to mate (the best job, by far). the queen exists only to bear offspring. the guards exist only to protect the colony. the seekers exist only to search out new food supplies. the foragers exist only to harvest these supplies.

every bee has its job, and each is equally important to the survival of the colony; no bee has a higher rank than any other bee because each one is equally important (not even the queen: without the worker bees to support the colony, and without the drone bees to ensure procreation, the queen has nothing and will die - the queen doesn't build the colony, nor protect herself (though she can - queen bees have an unbarbed stinger), nor feed herself).

hell... bees even gather together in the winter and shiver to create enough heat for the colony to survive until the spring.

...

that's why i have alot of respect for traditional (prior to the arrival of the european) native american culture. the indians, as we white folk like to call them, worked together to survive. they lived in pretty much perfect harmony until the white man arrived: none suffered, none were opressed - each indian had his purpose, and fulfilled it as best s/he possibly could.

though... the indians didn't embrace a democratic way. i believe the term for indian government is either archeocracy or presbyterocracy - rule by elders. that, i disagree with... but hell, it worked just fine for them.
It is a bee's nature to act in a communal manner in order for the group to survive, ants are much the same but you can't get ants and bees to work together for the common good. I really do not see the intellectual Bees and Ants getting together to form some kind of insect coalition for the betterment of both societies. Bees do not think or formulate political theories to better their society, Comrade

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Native Americans were neither "harmonious" nor "perfect" and they most certainly were not free of oppression or suffering. "Indians" were just as bloody as anyone else and just as exploitive. They just lacked the technological development to do it as well as the Europeans.

no society has yet to be perfect, of course...

and i do realise that there was some unfair practices (sacrifice, or the rites of passage, for example), but for for the most part, they weren't nearly as unfair as today's capitalists. and their entire economy was based on a barter/mercantile system (the mercantile system was praised by Marx).

but for the sake of arguement...

consider that... each individual of a tribe had specific jobs based on that person's abilities, and that the rewards of their communal work (for example, the buffalo or deer that the hunters return) were shared among the whole tribe.

from each, according to his ability, to each, accoriding to his need.

sounds like traditional communism to me.


Sorry, but the noble savage myth is bullshit and always has been.

c'mon.... let's avoid racist terms.


Capitalism isn't a "white man's crime", it's just a natural stage of human economic development. And if the Americas had never been occupied, they would have developed it regardless.

and i never said that it was.

but we white men did push it upon them.

and... if they had developed capitalism on their own, it wouldn't have been as opressive to the workers as our form is UNLESS they had also undergone their own industrial revolution. But if it came to the point where their workingclass was treated as unfairly as the workers of 17th century europe, i imagine they'd have developed their own unique way of dealing with it (action: capitalism. reaction: communism. perhaps we'd be reading the works of Chief Karl the great Stone Worker rather than Karl Marx).


Native Americans were victims of a horrendous crime, one of the worst in history; but they're just as human as anyone else and they're products of the same social forces.

i'm not speaking of their genetic ties to the rest of the world, i'm speaking of their cultural ways. Each tribe is like a commune in itself.


Communism isn't about glorifying the primative, it's about looking to the future. Don't get trapped in antiquity!

of course it is.

but we have to understand the roots of communism. the society of the abboriginal amerikkan is primitive communism.

[Connolly]

Question to those who know anything about ants: How exactly are specific ants created in proportion to the others. (badly put :D )

For example, if the colony is attacked, and loads of ants specifically born to defend the colony are killed (but the colony survive) - how are those ants replaced when the duties of the colony are now out of proportion.

Can the queen consciously give birth to 'colony defenders' when 'stocks are low to create balance?

Surely it cant work like our own species with only male and female possibilities, when ant colonies contain lots of specific types of ant for various purposes?

[Severian]

^^^^That's very much still being researched. But a larva can develop into a queen, worker, or soldier depending on what the workers feed it. Bees have something called "royal jelly" which is fed to a few larvae to make 'em queens.

Which illustrates that bees and ants aren't free. They don't have cops, jails, or supervisors - but they're slaves to their instincts, hormones, and pheromones. We have those - but learned behavior plays a large role too.

The bee-hive analogy has a whole history in the workers' movement. TAt one time there were newspapers and other institutions named "The Bee-Hive". Especially among anarchists, I think. Because the social insects seem so deeply and voluntarily cooperative.

But...not so voluntarily, really. And only among close genetic relatives - they'll attack others on sight. Humans are far better than any other species at cooperation among unrelated individuals. Thanks to language?

Nowadays, comparisons to anthills and beehives seem mostly used to attack communism. Really, the idea of being like an ant or bee doesn't appeal to most people.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 04:18 pm
^^^^That's very much still being researched. But a larva can develop into a queen, worker, or soldier depending on what the workers feed it. Bees have something called "royal jelly" which is fed to a few larvae to make 'em queens.
did you know they actually harvest royal jelly?

they sell it in drug stores and what not as a dietary supplement used for energy

[Connolly]

^^^^That's very much still being researched. But a larva can develop into a queen, worker, or soldier depending on what the workers feed it. Bees have something called "royal jelly" which is fed to a few larvae to make 'em queens.

Yeah, that seems to make sense (although whats 'sense' is beyond me on this subject :) ), that transformation and selection as to what type of ant is created is done after coming from the queen, rather than selected before being "layed" by the queen etc.

Thanks for that, very informative indeed.


did you know they actually harvest royal jelly?

they sell it in drug stores and what not as a dietary supplement used for energy

Iv heard of that. I bet thats expensive to buy and supplied in small quantities.

[Marukusu]

Originally posted by The RedBanner
Question to those who know anything about ants: How exactly are specific ants created in proportion to the others. (badly put )

For example, if the colony is attacked, and loads of ants specifically born to defend the colony are killed (but the colony survive) - how are those ants replaced when the duties of the colony are now out of proportion.

I've read that some species of bees or ants (I don't remember) actually have a system of conscription, where all worker bees/ants undergo a short period of guard duty before starting to work "as usual".

[ichneumon]

fire ants in n. america have evolved multi-queen hives where the queens are not related to each other, yet the workers (their sterile daughters) still cooperate. this is under intense study as it violates the assumed rules of inclusive fitness that were thought to govern eusocial insects.

if you wish to understand how communism and animal behaviour intersect, study the hawk-dove game paradigm and reciprocal altruism.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 04:11 pm
I've read that some species of bees or ants (I don't remember) actually have a system of conscription, where all worker bees/ants undergo a short period of guard duty before starting to work "as usual".
i know that with honey bees, their specific purpose in the hive changes as they mature (i saw it on animal planet, some show about the most extreme workoholics in nature). they start (as soon as they hatch) working as maids, then nurses, then guards, then foragers, and so on, and sometimes their jobs will change back to something they already did at an earlier stage of life if it's needed by the colony.

[encephalon]

Aeternal Nocturnis, I am begging you to please read up on the history of native americans... and saying "noble savage myth" is not a racist term, it's an actual myth perpetuated by white society. The entire myth of the noble savage did not exist until the early 1900s, and none of it was based upon factual evidence.

If you've questions about it, please post them in the history section. It would be best, though, if you researched it yourself. The native americans were not at all communal, at least no more than we are today with a public school system, and before the europeans arrived they had a very large empire in north america (as a single tribe) that fell due to famine (which was due to their farming practices). They were just as vicious as any other culture, and should not be romanticized.

What you could say about them was that they didn't understand the european style of warfare (due to their material circdumstances). Since every human life was important to the livelihood of the tribe (for the most part.. it varied in different areas), warfare between tribes often consisted of only one or two deaths. This is in contrast to after the Europeans arrived, whose wars claimed the deaths of most combatants. Native Americans were disgusted by this at first (but, of course, eventually accepted and practiced it).

Please, please, please please please study this before making any more assumptions about the native americans.

[angus_mor]

The problem with this example is that while a queen isn't necessarily more important than any other member of the colony, the colony is subject to her entirely. A worker bee will willingly sacrifice itself to protect the queen; they can only sting once, and in doing so give up their lives. The queen has a special hormone that she emits, which every other bee follows; if you move her, the swarm will move with her. You kill a single bee and the others won't give a shit, but if you kill the queen, you'd better believe you're in deep shit. The rest do sting when another stings, as it releases a hormone signaling danger, but if you crush one without causing it to release this hormone, the others won't even react. Furthermore, it's her colony; if another is born, she must leave to start a new colony upon maturation, and if multiple queens are born, they must fight to the death, winner take all; THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE HIGHLANDER!

[vyborg]

the bees are not more communist than a tree or a hog. Communism, as a stage of human life cannot simply be applied to animals, especially animals so poorly intelligent. The behaviour of bees is entirely directed by instincts.

The uses of terms like queen or worker for bees or ants is a non sense and a demonstration of how scientists and ethologist are deeply enslaved by the ideology of the ruling class.

[angus_mor]

The uses of terms like queen or worker for bees or ants is a non sense and a demonstration of how scientists and ethologist are deeply enslaved by the ideology of the ruling class.

Well the real problem is that scientists are anthropomorphing these creatures that communicate primitively through scents and hormones. They're eusocial insects and nothing more.

[Luís Henrique]

Fichte still has his following...

Shame that leftist people will praise ants or bees as models for human societies.

Luís Henrique