That’s why you need to have some kind of objective measure of the labor being performed. Marxian Ecology would likely not consider the dialectical relationship between pollinator and things which need pollinating unless the labor is being used for an extractive process that moves nutrients from one locality to another (from the rural to the urban). If the collection of honey is done in a way that doesn’t disturb the metabolism of the region then it would (to my extremely lay-person understanding of Marxian Ecology) not be exploitive in the same sense since what is extracted is then returned to the land it was extracted from.

Obviously the calculation is different when were talking about raising and eating animals as part of the reproduction of labor.

There’s two schools of thought:

1. Ethical Veganism as originally defined The Vegan Society, who split from vegetarians for their refusal to acknowledge the harm of the dairy industry. That definition is:

“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Under this definition, animals shouldn’t be used for labor in any capacity because doing so is inherently exploitative, even if it doesn’t ‘harm’ the animal. It’s to stop thinking of animals as lesser being unworthy of the kind of respect you generally show to people. While some very emotionally intelligent, many have essentially the minds of children or even less cognition than that. They are completely unaware of what you are doing and why, but that isn’t a reason to do it anyway. People often try to justify ‘working dogs’ like police dogs this way.

It’s an animal liberation movement at its core that still recognizes the current structure of society makes it impossible to avoid animal exploitation entirely. This is PETA, the ALF, most core members of your local vegan protest group.

2. The Practical Vegan

These people may be fine with second hand leather from a thrift store, may be “freegans” who would eat food that is “going to waste”, and would be fine with your scenario. They are often more concerned with the overall environmental impacts of animal agriculture rather than the exploitative nature of it.

They come in all types from slightly less strict than above to bordering on cosplaying carnists who have a little meat “as a treat” and are only vegan on Tuesday, yet want to chill in strict vegan spaces.

I fall somewhere in between since my partner is vegetarian and I kind of have to tolerate some amount of animal products at least being around. But what I would say to your scenario is that I’m not going to do any sort of gymnastics to justify animal agriculture while the conditions are the way they are. If I start eating the honey you’re talking about, am I encouraging everyone else to do the same? Probably not. They’re going to buy their honey at Walmart, from the beekeepers who replace the honey with less nutritious sugar water, let their hives die over winter, and clip their wings so they don’t establish colonies elsewhere.

I get that you’re talking a scenario in which ideally no animal is harmed, so it’s not exactly the same, but whenever veganism comes up, a million people come out to say “what about the small farms that don’t do X, Y, Z and make sure the animals live a good life”, etc. Yes, it’s objectively better, but the people running and buying from those places is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole population and probably 0 people actually posting in those threads. Those are the kinds of people snarky vegan comments are aimed at, not you. Just like the AFL isn’t targeting Inuit seal hunters, they’re going after and the organizations they support.

It is almost possible to do what you’re describing with chickens also (except for the fact you have to get them from a breeder or something equally as gross), where you take care of them, feed them their own eggs like they would eat in the wild and only take the excess, and support it through the end of its life. But I guarantee 5 people in the United States are doing that instead of killing the chicken when it’s no longer “useful”. Nobody is paying elderly chicken vet bills outside of sanctuaries.

So I and a lot of people either fall in the first camp, or refuse to let the veil drop until the industry of animal death has been dismantled. Then we can discuss if it’s possible to participate in it ethically. I hope that resonates even a little, because I feel it’s very similar to the way Hexbear treats a lot of international politics. Like not tolerating libs wandering in with the usual China slander, but being willing to discuss things amongst ourselves. Or not condemning a country to death by NATO bombs because they have problematic views on LGBTQ+ people. Holding the line, but still being critical amongst peers.

If you grew a garden full of food to sustain yourself through the winter and then I came along and took it all for myself and replaced it with Soylent, and continued to do this every year as you tried to sustain yourself, would this be free of exploitation?