I feel that the book lends itself to a single approach based on the idea’s that are more grounded within the idea’s of Scientific Marxism than they are grounded within the idea of Marxism as a whole. The line” it is not credit with any good deed, but it is held responsible for all harms.” told me alot about how we can see the author’s rhetoric in a general regard than i would’ve expected to hear if i would’ve read the same idea repeated but based on different matter’s of discussion. (P.G 11) ” And the problem is our aggressiveness, our relentless attack on nature.” While this line does stand true, the problem arises when we haven’t considered alternatives or we have simply failed to consider the current state of matter’s in regard’s to what direction capitalism now currently moves towards. I feel that his approach as an author is more in line with punk rock musicians who comment on political matter’s yet fail to consider alternatives that an individual politician maybe left with however, here he refer’s to extremist movement’s towards directing ourselves away from our “relentless attack on nature”. Yes, it stands true that we as human’s have not considered the damage capitalism has wrought upon our planet for a while, however we need to turn capitalism into a deal where we find ways to find monetary opportunities within the environment.