will this teach me politics? I want to learn what actually is a "left" and a "right" instead of going off vibes and strawmen
>>25341193Left = DumbledoreRight = Voldemort
>>25341193That list lacks anything that would describe the system we are currently living in (neoliberalism).Haven't read it, but picrel is its foundational text.
>>25341193Genuinely what do you expect some boyfuckers from 3000 years ago to add to your understanding of politics? Read Adam Smith, read Schmitt and read Spengler, that's all you'll need.
>>25341203This book was decent. He emphazised the threat that comes from socialist tendencies and had some good points to make. Other points were lackluster, but as it was a collection of unrelated points about government intervention (there is no cohesiveness to the work as a whole, aside from him referencing chapter II incessantly) it didn’t matter because many hit home very well. Nonetheless, his calculations were vague and inaccurate at times (him simply rounding up as he said in a footnote some $700000 because round numbers look better).Has an obvious complete bias against government intervention (and the lack of a particular scientific atmosphere for what can only be described as a poor man’s Hayek). Perhaps in the future when someone makes a book with these sentiments they should think things through a bit more, instead of just blindly assuming all government interference is inimical.His opinions on the medical industry and the schooling system were adequate however. On the whole, a terribly simplistic book on ‘Economics’ (if you can call it that). I’m about to begin reading on Spectral Analysis, so it is works like these that I believe give Economics its bad name. After all, this work is not scientific in the slightest.
>>25341193All you need to read to understand politics is Adam Smith, Marx, and Mao
>>25341193This list doesn't look very good. It tries to incorporate a strong classical foundation, and then it bounces between various, largely unconnected major books in politics with the occasional philosophy or religious book added in. It tries to be a list for everyone, but it ends up being a list for no one. A good list would trust that the reader already has a good intellectual foundation, and then present books in a more structured manner. The tactic of just throwing a dozen famous books into a list really annoys me because it reminds me of when you go looking for booklists on goodreads only to see a bunch of those lists where people add every single book they know to the list and books shown in the thumbnail are twilight, the hunger games, and harry potter.If I were putting together a booklist on politics, it would probably be heavy on history and current events books, and a tasteful number of books on applied politics like legislative politics, how one-party states work, etc. That will help you actually understand politics. Nearly everything on your list is worth reading. But I think I would go insane if I tried reading those without already having an understanding of history and modern politics. I'm starting to contradict what I said earlier about trusting your reader's intellectual background, but I hope you understand my point that you should understand the nature and narrative of politics before studying politics at a philosophical and theoretical level.
>>25341193Left = equality is a good thingRight = inequality is a good thingThere, thats all you need
>>25341785>Right = inequality is a good thing*Quality is a good thing
>>25341789Kek, no no. You were right.
Leviathan vs panopticon
>>25341193no.
>>25341193Anyone that disagrees with you is on the opposite side to the political spectrum you are, clearly
>>25341743if you were to add 5 extra books, which would you?
>>25341193I mean, IF you read all of that thoughtfully and without rushing through, you'd have a firmer sense of politics than the majority of people. But this requires the study of some years length.
>>25342225How do I read thoughtfullyHow do I be myown professor and student
