/unspooked/

You're not.

pretty much. being an anti-Stirner leftist is literally brainlet LARPer rage.

Read Spinoza ffs.

Spinoza is in no way antithetical to Stirner

Bear in mind that there is no teleology in Marxism, so I hope you're not suggesting Spinoza as an end in and of itself, as that precludes monism.

No, definitely not. But he goes a whole lot further in the criticism of value, skepticism of moral categories and was around about 150 years earlier while being theoretically much more powerful than anything St. Max ever wrote.
Reading Stirnerites is dealing with babby's first moral skeptic and his individualism is extremely shallow especially compared to Spinozan ethics.
Also great gateway into general western philosophy and probably the most relevant thinker for the left. Unlike Stirner.

Hegelian dialectics ARE teleological since they aim to realize spirit in the state. Marx's philosophy of history is subtly tainted by this and it takes a whole lot of theoretical digging to clarify this.
I didn't get what you were saying. Ofc Spinoza isn't the end to all western philosophy and theoretical works. I advocate for the systematic hybridation of spinozan thought with thinkers like Hobbes, Thucydides, Machiavel, Ibn Khaldoun, generally the social realists, all the way to Bourdieu/Durkheim. Ideally we should strive to have at least a fairly general understanding of the entire history of western philosophy.

Also ideally you should include a general epistemological reflection on historiography, history as science, knowledge of historiographical currents. I'm French so I only know the french tradition but there was a very interesting intellectual development of how "scientific history" was theoricised through various schools, like the Annales school (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annales_school) or structuralism. I think we ought to think of history as a deterministic process (because humans are determined) but that isn't teleological, much like evolution is. Evolution doesn't aim for anything specific, certain biological evolutions just work because of very down to earth reasons, same for historical innovations (techniques, cultures, mentalities, etc)

In Hegel, you have perhaps a point. The legacy of the Spinoza-Jacobi conflict was a major influence to Kant, who in turn was a major influence on Hegel. This does not however foreclose upon the aleatory universality that was suggested by Hegel, not just the understanding and construction of appearances, but how something like pretension to a finite universality can persist in a space of infinitude. (Granted, the connection to stochastic or 'empty subject' history is much more a Althusser/Lacan development, respectively - but I digress). I think that this is the trend that Marxism takes.
In absolute agreement.

I am not all too certain on the valuation of the evolutionary knowledge of humanity and its relation to the politic and edifice of history; however, I am more certain this is a matter of a difference of schools, in the same way that it took reading Lacan to understand jouissance. I hope the weather is fair there.

Comrade, let's talk this out. Let's remember Emma Goldman had a lot of influence from Stirner. Did you read the spook book?

Completely agree, the Marxists who disavow Stirner need to understand the context of TEaIO or else they'll wander off confused; it's the equivalent of the lolbert whose read the communist manifesto and claims to understand everything about communism. The spook book itself while containing a lot of insightful philosophy, readers get tripped up because they don't understand the context in, out, and around, the book itself; the book is structured like The Phenomenology of Spirit and follows the same line of reasoning to arrive at a self-refuting conclusion: it mocks Hegel's ideology brutally, so in essence, it's a joke, a satire, but also it's being serious. Marx completely missed the point because HE TOOK THE JOKE SERIOUSLY which lead us to the autistic meltdown in The German Ideology, Stirner came back and mocked him some more for this.
Read:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/stirner-the-wise-guy
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-philosophical-reactionaries
This will also make more sense after you're done:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics
And then, unrelated, but if you want more:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-art-and-religion
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-false-principle-of-our-education
And my personal favorite, after the go book of course:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-you-only-have-the-courage-to-be-destructive

Stirnerfags need to realise their own individuality or "uniqueness" is a societal construct. You can't even think consciously without language and language is necessarily social or superindividual.
Read up on Wittgenstein's private language argument and Valentin Voloshinov's Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.

Attached: I've seen some shit.jpg (405x563, 26.62K)

ok this is epic

Why has this thread been anchored? Which idiot did this?

Obviously board volunteer. I honestly wouldn't care if egoists threads were anchored on sight but we had actually a nice discussion about teleology of marxism/hegelian dialectics vs spinozan atelism.

So? That doesn't mean seeking to please that construct makes any less sense. You seem rather spooked my mans.

Attached: 2340.png (825x600, 163.33K)

It means your whole self-determination schtick is a farce.

wow, you wanna know what else is a social construct? killing yourself.

...