Eric, You have obviously done a lot of work and I think the result is very useful. To make a proper response would take at least as long as you have spent preparing this classification, so excuse me if I don't do it immediately. I have only three immmediate comments, which is to suggest that the designation 'Neo-Marxist' should be dropped (so that the entry reads only 'Radical'); that 'Neo-Ricardian' should be changed to 'Surplus Approach'; and that the designation 'New Solution' or 'New Approach' should be specifically included. As regards the second two proposals, the reason is simply that it causes least fuss if we call schools of thought by the name they choose for themselves. The Surplus Approach School over here strenuously objected to being called neo-Ricardians and while from my standpoint I think the latter is more scientific, I think the easiest way to have a clear debate is to respect the wishes of the protagonists about the way their own work is characterised. It simply clears secondary disputes out of the way. As regards the Marxists, the issue is slightly different but the core of it is the same. The term 'neo-Marxist' has been the subject of substantial polemic between writers who use it as a term of abuse, counterposing it to 'traditional' marxism (whatever that is) I am not even particularly keen on the word 'Marxist' since the people who write under that ticket seem to have done Marx more harm than anyone else (as with may -isms), but I would stick with the way the rest of the world sees it, which is anyone who wishes to identify themselves as Marxist is entitled to do so. I can't see anyone consciously wishing to be classified as a neo-Marxist, so I think the category is probably superfluous. But if there's a shoal of neo-Marxist lurkers out there, I take it all back. Rather than get into an arcane discussion I think it is best to use only consensus terms unless a distinction is unavoidable. So my suggestion is just to call everyone 'Marxist' who wants to accept the label and let them fight it out as to whether the other guys should be allowed in there with them. One other comment; what happens to articles that fall in two categories? Would you allow for joint production? Also, is this just a classification or could it be used as the basis of a keyword system? If the latter, it might tie up with the idea of an archive bibliography on the net. Just to repeat that I think the whole project is very worthy of support. Alan
