Not The Bees Knees

Capitalism's Contradictions

An article by Steve Volk in the science magazine, "Discover " about bees, starts with, "The science and politics of saving America's bees gets messy, and the bees continue to die."

The plight of wild and domestic bees highlights one of capitalism's many contradictions – profit-making is dangerous to the environment and/or humans. Bees pollinate some $30 billion in US crops every year including most fruits and leafy greens. Their contribution to human food and health is, then, considerable. However, they are in a crisis called 'colony collapse disorder' (ccd) and dying at unheard of rates from deadly pathogens. In addition, those bees that do survive are weakened and underperforming. Queen bees, crucial to the colony's survival, struggle to survive even one-third of their normal life span and beekeepers are scrambling constantly to replace them.

Science quickly isolated pesticides, fungicides, and insect growth regulators as the main problem. A particular class of chemicals called neonicotinoid pesticides (neonic for short) that yield billions in revenue for their manufacturers was implicated in the problem. So we have the profit making part harming the environment and humans.

Rachel Carson's 1960s argument is cited as the cause of the problem. That is, as outlined in her famous book, "Silent Spring", pests and weeds quickly develop resistance to these chemicals and thus increasingly toxic and concentrated concoctions are applied in ever greater amounts. In fact, we apply about 2.5 times more chemical pesticides, fungicides and herbicides than when the book was written. In addition the number of regulatory labs has decreased with fewer scientists studying that larger application of chemicals on our foods and the effects. Scientific investigation has shown that the number of chemicals in our environment is so vast that the task of studying their effect and interactions is virtually impossible. One study of comb and wax samples from beehives in twenty-three states found an average of six chemicals and as many as thirty-nine different pesticides present. Scientists discovered that the more the bees were fed neonics, the more they were susceptible to pathogens. A French study confirmed these findings. Neonics, produced by companies like Bayer and Syngenta, spread through the plant, including the nectar, became widely used in the 1990s, used on crops such as cotton, corn, soybeans, and canola. Not surprisingly, manufacturers' research showed no negative effects but bees have been shown by tagging with GPS trackers, to be impaired in foraging capabilities, memory, and navigation systems. Disease and parasites kill the bees but neonics are the underlying common denominator in the problem.

Thus the bee problem follows the usual pattern of the problem. Scientific answer, and denial by those making the profits. The full force of capital is brought to bear when profits are threatened.

 Powerful agro chemical corporations contribute millions in political donations and lobbying and they want to see some results for their investment. They can exert pressure on governments and their departments to obscure the truth and necessary solutions. For example, when Environmental Protection Agency scientists released a study in 2014, showing that neonics provided no significant rise in crop yield, implying that they could be restricted or banned, the US Department of Agriculture rejected these findings. In 2015, scientist Jonathan Lundgren filed a report that his supervisors suspended him in order to prevent his publishing his opinions on the dangers of chemical pesticides. Other scientists complained of their research papers being watered down, retracted studies, and indefinite delays in receiving approval to publish. This, by the way, echoes what had happened in Canada under the Harper administration. Despite denials from the USDA administration, their own Inspector General announced in 2016 that she had received a significant volume of scientific censorship complaints. This chain of events follows a familiar pattern. Scientists, who we charge with doing the research into a problem and coming up with solutions are bullied, ignored, demoted, shamed, and fired to discredit and devalue their work. Think of climate change or tobacco, clean oil and coal production, or any number of other controversies and you will see the pattern. Aside from the relations implied in capital, owner and non-owner, producer and idler, a hierarchy of humans, and so on, profit making usually causes damage to humans and/or the environment. In a sane system, anything harmful would be stopped or modified to eliminate harm.

Capital, however, is a thing and has no conscience or feelings and this necessarily extends to those charged with managing capital. Having people work in dirty and dangerous buildings that collapse in Bangladesh is regrettable but necessary to fulfil the need to realize a profit and expand capital. They are not bad people but they are compelled by fiduciary laws, and the clamour from investors, and competition, to put profit-making above all other concerns. If this sounds entirely mad, you are right, but it happens to be true. Even worse is the fact that profit-making benefits only a tiny minority of humans while the vast majority just let it go on. To remedy this you must learn more about the only alternative, socialism, and if you have read this journal, you have made a star.

Taken from