Austrian school covers many disciplines -- economics, history, law, politics etc. One can reasonably disagree with their views on, say, economics science, but calling it all just "politics" is simply an incorrect portrayal of what they do.

There's no clean way to separate the two at the macroeconomic level. I see Keynesianism as very political now, too; the empirical evidence that it is correct is very much lacking compared to how many devotees it has.

mises.org has a lot of economic and political theory, and it ties both together rather well.

Those mises.org people are neo-confederate crypto-racists. It's great if you're interested in the economics of feudalism.

What is a crypto-racist? I've met many people who work there and have found them quite friendly. And what's wrong with 1940s right-wing politics? It was definitely more sane than modern politics (right and left).

Where's the difference?

Economics is a value-free science, in that it analyses real-life processes and policy implications _without_ prescribing what specific goals are to be pursued by the policy makers.

Politics (unlike _political science_, arguably) is all about promoting specific values and fulfilling special interests. It's not necessarily "bad", it is just not what economics is about. Economics provides the tools for analyzing what _means_ are appropriate (or not) for attaining some or other ends, but the latter lie outside of the scope of economics as a science.

I wish this distinction was so hard and true. It has unfortunately been my experience that to address the assumptions of most economic thinkers, political engagement is required. Bringing up heterodox or marxist _economic_ arguments tends to be met with political resistance. I will redouble my efforts to keep the distinction alive.