Even tough I’m neither a zoomer or have ADHD I can relate with not being able to read Marx’s “Capital”, years ago I also jumped straight into it after only having read the manifesto and as consequence could not make past the 2º chapter.

But that is the “Capital”'s contradiction. It’s such a complete and elaborated description of capitalist economy that you theoretically wouldn’t need any other complementary text to understand capitalism, but as a consequence of that the book is extremely dense, complex and long, so much that if you never read a Marxist book prior you will be encountering new terms and logics in almost every paragraph, making it a very hard and slow read while also likely leading to misunderstandings.

The solution to that is to do exactly what your doing now, which is reading other simpler and shorter Marxists books and increasing your understanding of Marxism in general, before tackling the behemoth that is Marx’s “Capital”. So just remember that you can’t do capital yet, but after finishing your list, if you give it another try maybe you will find out that you actually can do it.

That is a good New Year’s Resolution to have, as it’s always better to know more theory. Personally I always recommend to anyone that is planing to do a deep dive in Marxist theory to start with the philosophy on which the theory itself is based, that means reading books on Dialectical Materialism as the first step.

You already have a couple of them in your list, so my recommendation is to prioritize them over their application in the more advanced books. On that note the only book I would add to your list is M. Cornforth’s “Materialism and the Dialectical Method” which is arguably the book to describe Diamat in the most understandable way for modern readers.

Other than that, I would say after finishing that list it’d be time to tackle the two most important works of Marx and Engels in Engels’ “Anti-Dühring” and Marx’s “Capital”.

Good reading, Comrade.

Well, in the link they mention 5 out 40 in a class, that equals to 12.5% and 2 million out of 22 million in total, that is just over 9%.

I fell we have lost ourselves in the analysis of the situation and therefore need to take a step back, return to the basics and as MLs remember to use diamat to try and see the big picture.

Since the fall of the USSR in the 90s, the principle contradiction in global economics has been the Us-China one. And for most of this period the Us has been the leading aspect of that contradiction, as it already started as a imperialist potency while China was still in the middle of its poverty alleviation plan, but since the 2008 crisis China has begun a process of reducing its dependence on western economics and preparing itself to take the place of the main aspect in the future.

And in my opinion ever since COVID and the consequences of how each country handled it, China has taken the leading role in that contradiction and consequently it is now what defines the nature of world economics, which is why we are seeing so many changes in geo-politics recently, both from China trying to assert its position with the de-dollarisation of global trade and the increase of allied countries with BRICS, and from the Us reaction with the Ukraine war and now with the government trying to re-invest in its own industry.

Without discussing the important aspect of imperialism and whether or not the Us still has the infrastructure to produce goods at a competitive price with China, the main focus of my comment is to bring attention to the fact that this is all part of a ongoing process with both sides struggling for the leading role in the global economy contradiction. So even tough saying that the Us is collapsing or they are powerless is hopelessly unmaterialistic, we should exalt the fact that China is becoming the principle aspect and that process is only going to keep changing, in both quantitative and qualitative ways, until the Us has no more place in the global economic contradiction.