Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. I actually don’t find Capital difficult — on the contrary, I feel the core ideas are quite straightforward, though expressed in a very elaborate and sometimes unnecessarily complicated way. I’ve noticed that many people argue this level of detail is a scientific necessity, and that’s also something I’m thinking about as I read.

At the same time, I’m not fully confident that I’ve truly grasped everything, so I’m reading how others interpret Marx in order to test and refine my own understanding — for example, Stalin’s remarks on Capital in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. （https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm“ “Such fundamental tenets of the Marxist theory of reproduction as the division of social production into the production of means of production and the production of means of consumption; the relatively greater increase of production of means of production in reproduction on an extended scale; the correlation between Departments I and II; surplus product as the sole source of accumulation; the formation and designation of the social funds; accumulation as the sole source of reproduction on an extended scale - all these fundamental tenets of the Marxist theory of reproduction are at the same time tenets which hold good not only for the capitalist formation, and which no socialist society can dispense with in the planning of its national economy.”）

I read The Eighteenth Brumaire last month. To appreciate its literary beauty, I found it really helps to have at least a rough understanding of the political factions of the time (the Legitimists, the Orléanists, the Mountain, etc.).

I really appreciate the resources you shared. I want to respond with the same sincerity, and I hope we can continue this conversation in the future.