Content of review 1, reviewed on September 13, 2021
The paper would appear to consist of 5 paragraphs. But at the moment the authors have submitted paragraph 1, 2, and 5 to the journal in only 2 pages.
I guess then that it is an error in the submission.
If, on the other hand, this is not a research paper but an introduction to a special issue, it should be specified and a description of the contributions it introduces should be given.
In any case, here are some tips and criticisms:
Paragraph 1 refers to Marx and anarchist thought in an extremely general way. In general, none of the statements in the first paragraph are argued
It also lacks precise research questions.
Paragraph 2 presents a figure based on the authors' feeling. How can such an epispetomolgical approach be justified? Especially when in contemporary social sciences it has become commonplace to use data that can also be obtained from social platforms.
Bibliographic references are very scarce. On the subject of anti-capitalist movements and their possible coordination there is an endless literature. See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Assembly, Oxford University Press. 2017 and the references present in the book
From the few pages that make up this paper it would seem that the authors are interested in those parts of anti-capitalist thought that deal with environmental issues.
A good reading on this field is Barca S., Leonardi E., Working-class ecology and union politics: A conceptual topology, in Globalizations, 15(4), 2018, 487–503.
Source
© 2021 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).
Content of review 2, reviewed on October 29, 2021
This is a viewpoint kind article admitted by the journal. This new version is clearer than the previous one.
Source
© 2021 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).
References
Serafino, L., Ghezzo, F. 2021. TINA Is Dead: Reflecting on Postcapitalist Futures. Humans, 1(2): 44.
