Where do leftist ethics come from?

Leftist ethics come from Murray Bookchin

;_;

It's funny, he used to have a real love for proletarian culture, low culture, and his own proletarian roots. There are anecdotes of Bookchin flying somewhere to do a lecture, and the organisers there wanting to take him out for dinner, and Bookchin wanting to go to Mcdonalds.

How are capitalism and feudalism natural? Just because they happened?

Would that not also make socialism natural in places that had socialist revolutions?

Hey Holla Forums, nice you put a tad bit more effort than usual.

You know what I love about Holla Forums raids? Is that they always backfire. Here's the quick rundown on how's it gonna go, bucko:
Two paths now stand before the Holla Forumsyp, he could either
or either

or he becomes a nazbol; he takes the purple pill

Have a bump there friendo, and tell your Holla Forums fellas to drop by for some cool theory!

We do what's best for ourselves and what's best for ourselves is what's best for our class interests.
No one "deserves" anything. We take what we want because we want it.

[citation needed]

What about the green pill of Zizek that allows us to perceive the flaws in the system while remaining a part of it and thus not ostracising ourselves?

To this day I still do not understand how that fucking thing came into being outside of Russian nationalists having a hardon for Stalin and I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on that

This only holds true if you define "hierarchy" as any sort of order at all, and use the term to apply to different and basically uncomparable phenomenon. Bookchin debunked this garbage decades ago. To quote from their "Sociobiology or Social Ecology":

"In fact, a genetic strategy that makes the behavior of the “social insects” comprehensible actually renders human society incomprehensible. So-called primate “hierarchies” (a completely libelous term) yield strictly individual dominance-submission relationships (another libelous term) on the basis of largely physical attributes – notably, strength, hormonal fortitude, and possibly even intelligence, although the visible distinctions between a “smart” ape and a “dumb” one are barely noticeable in a primate community. It is quixotic ethologists like Jane Goodall-Lawick, rather than apes themselves, who make these uniquely anthropomorphic distinctions. The myth of an intragroup “hierarchy” dissolves completely once we recognize that an “alpha” male chimpanzee is an individual creature, not an institution. His “dominant status” (whatever these words means) lives or dies with the fortunes of the ape, not with the fortunes of the group. Hence, “hierarchy” in the most “caste-like” apedoms or monkeydoms more closely resembles the links in a chain than layers and consciously empowered community structures.

The difference is a crucial one. A weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an “alpha” male, much less retain this highly ephemeral “status.” By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history and altered its destiny profoundly. The cry “The King is Dead! Long Live the King!” expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called “animal hierarchies,” where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about “alpha males” or “queen bees.” Sociobiology, with its definitional reductionism, totally dissolves these crucial distinctions. “Hierarchy,” to Wilson, is a “system of two or more levels of units, the higher level controlling the least to some extent the activities of the lower levels in order to integrate the group as a whole.” One is tempted to observe that this “integrative” function must be hot news to an ape or termite. In any case, the terms “system,” “levels,” “units,” and “controlling”—so widely disparate throughout the animal world—are precisely the concepts and categories that Wilson is obliged to explain if the notion of “animal hierarchy” is to have meaning. These explanations are all the more necessary because “castes” of “worker bees” (another group of juicy terms) are in no way comparable to the “alpha males” among primates. Wilson’s fast-and-loose interchanging of “levels” and “units” allows him to recklessly pirouette around every part of animal ethology, from beehives to baboon troops. The genetic origins of beehive differentiation are blissfully transferred to less instinct-governed primate groups and then, almost joyously, to strictly contrived human social and political institutions." - theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-sociobiology-or-social-ecology

...

Certainly not socialism. The amount of dead by Stalin should have made the whole ideology unthinkable

really activated my almonds

Wew. You're really going all out.

yes that's exactly what capitalist ethics are you fucking dunce.
when they tell you to become a wageslave or investor or whatever the fuck else they tell you it's in your interest and you shouldn't care about anyone else.

Deaths of some are often in the interests of others.

nigger pls. none of us do. just because it happened once in one way doesn't mean it will happen every time in the same way.

Not really.

Most capitalist ethics are all about sacrificing yourself. No capitalist I'm aware of says they became rich because they could and it benefited them. They usually have some sob story about what a self-depriving, ascetic lifestyle they lead to become rich. Even Trump's "small loan of a million dollars" was an attempt at this (albeit a very poor one).

How come deaths by capitalism are acceptable but deaths under socialist regimes are an atrocity?

Their
EGOISM

I'm pretty sure it will arise out of or as a reaction to capitalism, regardless of whether it is the ML's, anrkiddies, or anyone else who hits it first. Despite its many faults, capitalism is still better on purely material terms then anything else we've tried prior to capitalism arising, as Marx never tired to point out.

Everyone always forgets that.
Third pill is best pill.