Hey /his/, I am looking for a book that would analyze and compare

>>2575932
>the Two sides of political orientation

That there are only two sides is an illusion.

so is there a must read in syncretic politics then? or how can i redpill myseld reliably?

The titles to name are countless. I would suggest going to a library and ask around. They way I approach it, is by reading critics. A critic of smith and of marx. That way you force yourself to analyse yourself. Since you read smith and marx (I guess not their enitre legacy?), you can formulate and analyse and compare your own views with that of marx, smith and people who critic them. Reading works of history has a methode:). In a sense you start a discussion with dead people over and over again:p. (btw critic is helpfull, but people who agree with you or have the same conclusions but different viewpoints help as well in formulating your own).

I am sorry that I haven't given you any titles, I hope what I had to say was still helpfull.

>>2575963
Please give tips, don't discourage.

Adam Smith is a classic, but his economic ideas are outdated as fuck. Only Marxists consider their prophet's books written in the 19th century are holy writ and never need to be updated. The only two sides you're going to know if you read those two are the two sides 150+ ago.

>>2575987
so what sides do you consider less outdated?

Also you have to start somewhere, even if it is 150 years old

>>2576006
If you're going to make a comprehensive study, then yes. Smith and Marx aren't so opposed, as Marx economic ideas are actually based off him and Ricardo. The labor theory of value is where Marxism and stands and falls, and the Austrian school debunked that.

The two sides today are basically Keynesianism vs Neoclassicism. Hard Marxists have left the economic debate a long time ago and took refugee in the humanities departments where people are significantly dumber and they can say whatever they want. They have also metamorphosed into post-modernism and now gender, etc. issues have replaced class warfare.

>>2576019
So what, economics live in a vaccuum? In what way does this make any sense? Humanities are significantly dumber? I didn't know you hold the truth. Obviously you have no clue of the methode of 'humanities'. You are missing perspective. Yes it is outdates. But your 'gender etc issues have replaced class warfare' makes you a new wave marxists biaaatch.

>>2575987
There is quite a bit of contemporary communist literature that approaches Marx critically, now that the USSR is gone and Lenin was proven to be a retard whose vision no longer dominates the academia.

>Left vs Right
worst meme ever

>>2575982
>Please give tips, don't discourage.

OP should be discouraged, though.

As someone posted before, when it comes to philosophy, and especially economics. There are more than two sides to the issue. There are many different ways to view the situation and explain it.

Carl Menger's Principles of Economics and Léon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics were both economic textbooks introducing the concept of Marginal value, but one of them has no mathematical equations and the other sometimes reads like a Euclidean proof.

Adam Smith was mocked by conservatives in his lifetime.

>>2576335
He should be criticed, made to think, never discourage. Critize but leave the conversation open enough.

It is wrong to put Adam Smith on a left-right spectrum.

Better to put him on a

Physiocrat-Mercantilistic-spectrum.