Uploaded October 2019 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This is a marxist analysis of "The Bee Movie (2007)".
Twitter: twitter.com/Viki1999Yt
Transcript:
The Bee Movie follows the story of a Bee Named Barry B. Benson. At the start of the movie he learns that he is expected to spend his entire life working which leads him to question his purpose in life and triggers an existential crisis. He represents the alienated youth that questions the legitimacy of capitalist production and the purpose of spending every waking day working simply for the sake of production. He is horrified how his life is only seen as one of many and his lack of individuality. This is mirrored by late stage capitalism in which every person is replaceable and expected to work until their death.
Barry tries to find a meaning in the jobs offered to him and finds the Pollen Jocks. They represent a better off part of the Proletariat, what a neoliberal capitalist would call the middle class. While they are workers like everyone else in the hive, they have more prestige. Barry aspires to become one of them in an attempt at leaving the hard life that awaits the other members of the proletariat. This represents escapism from capitalism similar to how a lot of young people dream of becoming rich and famous instead of facing the fact that they can never achieve this under capitalism.
Eventually the pollen Jocks allow him to take part in a mission where he meets the human woman named Vanessa. They meet as she defends him against her boyfriend who wants to kill Barry. The humans in this story represent the bourgeoisie. They profit of the exploitation of the hard-working bees while not considering them as important as seen when Ken tries to kill Barry.
Ken represents a privileged conservative person that views the working class as less valuable than him. Throughout the film we can see him trying to oppose all change brought upon by Barry, we can see the obvious jealousy in him when Bees begin to gain rights similar to him much like how many privileged people oppose change that would help the working class.
Barry eventually takes note of the large-scale exploitation of his people and decides that he wants to do something about it. Vanessa, who represents a well-meaning member of the bourgeoisie, tries her best to help Barry with the liberation of the working class despite the fact that her flower business is build around the unpaid labour of Bees, much like how Friedrich Engels critiqued capitalism while living off the labour of the employees in his factory.
Barry and Vanessa do not attempt to change the system of exploitation with violent means but with legal action. The bourgeois defendant uses the typical arguments leveraged against the working class. They claim that the proletariat is naturally subordinate to the bourgeois and that changing this system of exploitation wouldn’t be fair to those who became rich on the back of the bee’s hard work.
Eventually Barry showcases some of the brutal means of subjugation used by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat in check and prevent an uprising which grants him sympathy among the liberal jury which then decides in his favour.
However the reforms implemented after this end up hurting the entire planet as plants stop to be pollinated when the bees stop their work. Some bees even mention how they miss working and having a purpose in life. As Marx predicted the people want to work even if they aren’t forced to.
Ultimately Barry decides that he must reverse all changes he made. The proletariat picks up work again and everything returns to normal. The bees work, the flowers get pollinated and the humans exploit the bees again. The only difference at the end of the movie is that Barry himself has gotten a new job as lawyer.
This represents the tendency of the proletariat to reverse all changes brought by revolution as soon as negative aspects emerge. Instead of building up a better system from the grounds of the failed revolution they revert back to the old system of exploitation. We can see this in all former eastern bloc countries which preferred top revert back to capitalism after they experienced the problems brought upon by Stalinism.
In the end of the movie the bees are back to where they where at the beginning, they have to work their entire lives and humans still get rich off their back. We are told that this is a good ending for the movie even though millions of members of the proletariat are still being exploited for their entire lives. The movie invites us not to think about this though, instead we are supposed to focus on the story of Barry who became a lawyer and thus got a better life than most of the proletariat. He then forgets the struggle and everyone accepts the bourgeois propaganda from before which states that the proletariat is naturally subordinate to the bourgeoisie.
This is a marxist analysis of "The Bee Movie (2007)".
Twitter: twitter.com/Viki1999Yt
Transcript:
The Bee Movie follows the story of a Bee Named Barry B. Benson. At the start of the movie he learns that he is expected to spend his entire life working which leads him to question his purpose in life and triggers an existential crisis. He represents the alienated youth that questions the legitimacy of capitalist production and the purpose of spending every waking day working simply for the sake of production. He is horrified how his life is only seen as one of many and his lack of individuality. This is mirrored by late stage capitalism in which every person is replaceable and expected to work until their death.
Barry tries to find a meaning in the jobs offered to him and finds the Pollen Jocks. They represent a better off part of the Proletariat, what a neoliberal capitalist would call the middle class. While they are workers like everyone else in the hive, they have more prestige. Barry aspires to become one of them in an attempt at leaving the hard life that awaits the other members of the proletariat. This represents escapism from capitalism similar to how a lot of young people dream of becoming rich and famous instead of facing the fact that they can never achieve this under capitalism.
Eventually the pollen Jocks allow him to take part in a mission where he meets the human woman named Vanessa. They meet as she defends him against her boyfriend who wants to kill Barry. The humans in this story represent the bourgeoisie. They profit of the exploitation of the hard-working bees while not considering them as important as seen when Ken tries to kill Barry.
Ken represents a privileged conservative person that views the working class as less valuable than him. Throughout the film we can see him trying to oppose all change brought upon by Barry, we can see the obvious jealousy in him when Bees begin to gain rights similar to him much like how many privileged people oppose change that would help the working class.
Barry eventually takes note of the large-scale exploitation of his people and decides that he wants to do something about it. Vanessa, who represents a well-meaning member of the bourgeoisie, tries her best to help Barry with the liberation of the working class despite the fact that her flower business is build around the unpaid labour of Bees, much like how Friedrich Engels critiqued capitalism while living off the labour of the employees in his factory.
Barry and Vanessa do not attempt to change the system of exploitation with violent means but with legal action. The bourgeois defendant uses the typical arguments leveraged against the working class. They claim that the proletariat is naturally subordinate to the bourgeois and that changing this system of exploitation wouldn’t be fair to those who became rich on the back of the bee’s hard work.
Eventually Barry showcases some of the brutal means of subjugation used by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat in check and prevent an uprising which grants him sympathy among the liberal jury which then decides in his favour.
However the reforms implemented after this end up hurting the entire planet as plants stop to be pollinated when the bees stop their work. Some bees even mention how they miss working and having a purpose in life. As Marx predicted the people want to work even if they aren’t forced to.
Ultimately Barry decides that he must reverse all changes he made. The proletariat picks up work again and everything returns to normal. The bees work, the flowers get pollinated and the humans exploit the bees again. The only difference at the end of the movie is that Barry himself has gotten a new job as lawyer.
This represents the tendency of the proletariat to reverse all changes brought by revolution as soon as negative aspects emerge. Instead of building up a better system from the grounds of the failed revolution they revert back to the old system of exploitation. We can see this in all former eastern bloc countries which preferred top revert back to capitalism after they experienced the problems brought upon by Stalinism.
In the end of the movie the bees are back to where they where at the beginning, they have to work their entire lives and humans still get rich off their back. We are told that this is a good ending for the movie even though millions of members of the proletariat are still being exploited for their entire lives. The movie invites us not to think about this though, instead we are supposed to focus on the story of Barry who became a lawyer and thus got a better life than most of the proletariat. He then forgets the struggle and everyone accepts the bourgeois propaganda from before which states that the proletariat is naturally subordinate to the bourgeoisie.

![The Holodomor (and whether it was a genocide)
This video is an in depth view on the South soviet famine of 1932 and 1933, specifically in Ukraine known as the Holodomor. I explain the historical facts about the famine and engage in the question of whether or not this historical tragedy can rightfully be called a genocide.
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/viki1999
Second channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtXcyUuCaUMY2GGU_8iM1hg
Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/viki1999
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Viki1999Yt
E-Mail Address: viki1999mail@gmail.com
The song in the outro was produced by 08 (who gave me no way to credit them), you can listen to the whole remix on my second channel: https://youtu.be/jZOrMsIOZh0
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
3:31 What happened
8:45 The video I would have made
14:05 The issue with my argument
19:50 The argument for genocide
25:51 The argument against genocide
31:03 The Kazakhstan famine of 1932
33:44 Conclusion
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
[2] https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6emmgC6rsGA
[5] https://www.proquest.com/openview/e34eacccd8e08106d784c0dba1a3cc78/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1818745
[6] https://www.wsj.com/articles/rule-by-starvation-1507319629
[7] Davies, Robert; Wheatcroft, Stephen (2009). The years of hunger: Soviet agriculture, 1931–1933. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780333311073.
[8] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042602039_2.htmlc
[10] https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0105.xml
[11] https://education.holodomor.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LEMKIN-UN-SPEECH-FULL%E2%80%93Holodomor_PartIV_Friesens.pdf
[12] https://education.holodomor.ca/teaching-materials/role-of-lemkin/
[13] https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS2319/h16/pensumliste/stalin-and-the-soviet-famine-of-1932-33 a-reply-to-ellman.pdf
[14] https://history.wvu.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty/mark-b-tauger
[15] Tauger, Mark (1991). The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933. Slavic Review. 50 (1): 70–89. doi:10.2307/2500600. JSTOR 2500600.
[16] https://archive.org/details/stalinistterrorn00gett
[17] http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/02/02/stalins-holodomor-in-kazakhstan-or-a-very-brief-guide-to-the-goloshchekin-genocide/
5 person discord invite. Hit the bell to catch it under the next video. And please only use it if you willbe active on the server, otherwise leave it for others: https://discord.gg/yPzdbFb77d
Transcript:
Hello everybody. This is gonna be an interesting one. We are talking about the Holodomor and whether it was a genocide or not, and then we will go meta and explore why we even ask ourselves that, exciting. I already know there will be some people in the comments, usually with anime Stalin avatars telling me that “holodomor” is a propaganda name and I should call it “the soviet famine of 1932 and 33.”
But that is a mouth full and when I say Holodomor everyone familiar with the event knows what I mean. So, let’s talk about the thing that happened and not about how to call it. I think there is a non-zero chance some viewers may not have heard about the holodmor before. In that case, stick around for a minute I’ll get to it.
The Holodomor is a very controversial issue among leftists and many others to be honest. To some it is merely a famine which unfortunately killed millions, to some it is proof that the government of the USSR was cruel and idealistic and to some it was a deliberate extermination of Ukrainian people, a genocide. And others used this tragedy to blame socialism in general and Stalin in particular.
I agree with some of them and not with others. For this video I will use the following approach: I will go over the undeniable facts, this part should not be controversial to any side. Then I will talk about how I used to think about it, what I thought it should have been remembered as, then I will summarise why some think it was a genocide, why others disagree and a frighteningly similar event that happened at the same time and why we don’t argue about this one.
In this video, unlike my other ones I will not try to convince you of one position. I want to communicate to you what people believe, as well as why they believe it, and I want you to decide between those. I will mention how I used to think about it, but I want you to form your independent decision this time. No vikiist party line here. The Holodomor (and whether it was a genocide)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ANDqlxpcs2c/mqdefault.jpg)
![Watching a funny libertarian rant [Reply to Scotty M] (he has since deleted the vid. Read desc.)
PLEASE NOTE: He took down the video I am replying to without explanation, one possibility is that he was getting harassed by people from this video. I oppose that. I considered taking my video down. After all my channel is now close to 3 times the size of his channel (unlike when I uploaded this, at that time his channel was bigger) and I dont want to lead a hate mob against a smaller channel. But on the other hand I came to the conclusion that it is my right to reply to a video about him and the fact that his channel is small should not be a reason for me to remove my criticism. Because of this I held a YT community post to decide and right now its 75% in favor of keeping this video up. This is why this video still exists despite the fact that the video I am replying to does not.
This video is a reply to Libertarian views scotty Ms video about me. He is replying to my last video in which he appeared. While he is pretending to reply to me all he actually does is rant about random topics for 30 minutes. Some of his topics include trumps covid comments, the starving time in 1607, the history of india as well as many other topics which are not related to my video. For the sake of speed I disregarded some of his argument in favor of focusing on the more credible ones.
Subreddit: reddit.com/r/viki1999
Patreon: patreon.com/viki1999
Twitter: twitter.com/Viki1999Yt
E-Mail Address: viki1999mail@gmail.com
Links:
Scottys video: youtube.com/watch?v=Hmi4qB_eXkY
820 Million people Lack the food to live a healthy life: htthttps://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1042411
9 Million Starve each year: https://www.creditdonkey.com/world-hunger-statistics.html
9 Million Starve each year2: https://www.mercycorps.org/blog/quick-facts-global-hunger
Transcript:
Hello everybody, one of my last videos was this one, it became my best received video so far, finally breaking the record set by my first video, long story. Anyway in that one I made fun of some silly libertarians including this one. Among other things I said that he must be reasonable and open to change his mind if he put his ideology into his username. And in the comment section he totally proved me right by going on a long rant about, well, everything.
I then told him that if he intends to make a video about me he should watch a few other of my videos so he wouldn’t repeat the same 5 old lies. Stuff like how socialism did not kill 100 million, that markets aren’t that efficient and that they are responsible for about 15 million deaths each year. He totally took that advice, I am sure. And he then made a 30 minute response video. So that’s what we are doing today, we are looking at his response to my video.
His video is quite long and if I made a full response it would take about 5 hours since videos take about 10 times their own runtime to be debunked. Because of this I will be ignoring some of the more generic arguments and only talk about actual interesting points and things that are so radicicolous that I had to show them to you. So, without further ado let’s get into it, shall we?
He starts of by showing the first few seconds of my video. This is the only time he shows anything from me which is kind of odd for a response video. The rest is kind of an unhinged rant. And there is one thing you might notice, he seems to be confused about my pronouns. And I should have addressed that earlier. I use she/her pronouns and I am not a boy either. I am a woman and I have always been one. I know it’s hard to believe because of the voice but that’s actually just because of a gene defect which causes my body to produce too much testosterone which then changed my voice. I recognise the confusion but from now on you know.
Anyway, his video starts off with explaining that socialism and collectivism are synonyms. And he further explains that I was using the wrong definition of socialism in my video. He then shows us his definition of socialism. Okay so this says. ”Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
While I said. “Socialism is worker or community control over the means of production, like a factory which democratically decides how to operate” the only difference I can see is that I didn’t explicitly mention the state. Because if someone considers the state an extension of the community then to them state control is community control. So he says I am making up my own definition while showing my definition on screen. Okay then. Watching a funny libertarian rant [Reply to Scotty M] (he has since deleted the vid. Read desc.)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ARcQxpojjxc/mqdefault.jpg)







