validation_evolution_annotated.csv

concept,earlier_author,later_author,transformation,rationale,key_earlier_claims,key_later_claims,confidence,human_correct,notes
revolution,mixed_marx_engels,lenin,REFORMULATED,"Lenin defines revolution chiefly as an authoritarian act in which one part of the population imposes its will by force, whereas Marx and Engels describe revolution as a practical, mass movement that overturns the ruling class and transforms material conditions. The term is retained but its core meaning shifts from emancipatory transformation to coercive imposition.","[""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0079__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0079__c1"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0079__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v4__p0412__c4""]","[""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0068__c2"", ""lenin_renegade-kautsky__p0019__c0""]",0.86,y,Confirmed accurate by user (domain expert): Lenin's authoritarian framing of revolution is a fair characterization of the shift from Marx/Engels.
commodity_capital,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,EXTENDED,"Luxemburg retains Marx’s core idea that commodity‑capital is a distinct functional form in the circuit of capital (e.g., Marx’s claim that commodities become commodity‑capital as a functional form derived from production). She extends this by emphasizing the continuous alternation of three capital forms and introducing the problem of unsalable commodity‑capital and virtual money‑capital, adding a crisis‑related mechanism not present in the earlier passages.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0049__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0050__c2""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0074__c2"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0134__c3""]",0.86,y,
mode_of_production,mixed_marx_engels,stalin,PRESERVED,"Stalin’s statements (p0024 c0, c3) define the mode of production as the method of procuring material means of life and as comprising productive forces and relations of production, which mirrors Marx’s earlier description of the mode of production as the economic structure, the conditions of production, and the combination of forces and social relations (p0335 c2, p0782 c0). No new components or altered scope are introduced, only a restatement of the same core concept.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0335__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0782__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v3__p0424__c2""]","[""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0024__c0"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0024__c3""]",0.86,y,
historical_materialism,lenin,trotsky,EXTENDED,"Lenin defends historical materialism as the scientific basis of socialism and stresses the materialist conception of history and the party’s role in recognizing material prerequisites. Trotsky keeps this core meaning but adds a broader methodological framing (Marxism as a method of analyzing social relations) and applies it to the concrete conditions of the 1917 revolution, emphasizing the forces of production and the party’s alignment with historical development. This adds new scope while preserving the original concept.","[""lenin_two-tactics__p0031__c2"", ""lenin_lenin-materialism-and-empirio-criticism__p0003__c1""]","[""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0001__c0"", ""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0034__c1"", ""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0111__c0""]",0.88,y,
anarchism,lenin,luxemburg,CONTESTED,"Lenin describes anarchism as a distinct principle that can emerge in practice (lenin_one-step-forward p0218 c4) and as a stance condemning participation in provisional governments (lenin_two-tactics p0075 c2). Luxemburg, writing later, argues that in Russia anarchism is being liquidated, does not lead the mass strike, and is not a serious tendency (luxemburg_mass-str p0004 c4; luxemburg_mass-str p0005 c4), directly opposing Lenin’s more neutral or even affirming description of anarchism’s theoretical relevance.","[""lenin_lenin-one-step-forward__p0218__c4"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0075__c2""]","[""luxemburg_mass-str__p0004__c4"", ""luxemburg_mass-str__p0005__c4""]",0.78,y,
proletarian_culture,lenin,trotsky,CONTESTED,"Trotsky explicitly argues that the goal should be a socialist culture rather than a 'proletarian culture', challenging Lenin's endorsement of a distinct proletarian culture distinct from the past. He also stresses the proletariat's lingering ties to historic heritage, further contesting Lenin's view.","[""lenin_lenin-materialism-and-empirio-criticism__p0006__c1"", ""lenin_lenin-materialism-and-empirio-criticism__p0006__c0""]","[""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0175__c5"", ""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0175__c3""]",0.78,y,
vanguard_party,lenin,mao,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Lenin defines the vanguard party as a disciplined, theoretically advanced organisation that must lead the masses through concrete action and professional revolutionaries (e.g., ""the role of the vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory""; ""the vanguard must demonstrate its leading role through concrete actions""). Mao retains the idea of a leading Communist Party but adapts it to Chinese conditions, stressing rural political propaganda, strong party organization in base areas, and the indispensable role of party representatives within Red Army units (e.g., ""The spread of political propaganda in the countryside is entirely an achievement of the Communist Party""; ""The system of Party representatives must not be abolished""). He does not reject Lenin’s core theory, but applies it to a different historical‑national context, thus the concept is contextualized.","[""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0023__c0"", ""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0070__c0"", ""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0090__c2""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0032__c2"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0047__c0"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0063__c0""]",0.86,y,
social_division_of_labour,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Marx defines the social division of labour as the specialization of useful labour that arises with commodity production and remains conceptually stable, while Trotsky uses the same term to describe a historically contingent phenomenon that failed to emerge in Russia due to low economic development and state oppression, applying the concept to a specific national context without altering its core meaning.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0049__c6"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0050__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0050__c3""]","[""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0014__c0"", ""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0014__c4""]",0.86,y,
variable_capital,mixed_marx_engels,lenin,PRESERVED,"Lenin’s statements restate the Marx‑Engels definition of variable capital as the part of capital expended on labour‑power and used to calculate the rate of surplus‑value (s/v). The later claims echo the earlier ones about the variable component’s role in generating surplus value and the ratio s/v, without adding new mechanisms or scope.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0229__c1"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0237__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0239__c0""]","[""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c8"", ""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c9"", ""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c10""]",0.9,y,
insurrection,lenin,trotsky,CONTESTED,"Lenin argues that the party must subject and lead the insurrection (e.g., lenin_two-tactics__p0074__c4, lenin_two-tactics__p0075__c0, lenin_two-tactics__p0075__c3), whereas Trotsky reports that attempts to lead the insurrection directly through the party produced no results (trotsky_ebook-history-of-the-russian-revolution-v3__p0337__c1), directly challenging Lenin's prescription while retaining the term.","[""lenin_two-tactics__p0074__c4"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0075__c0"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0075__c3""]","[""trotsky_ebook-history-of-the-russian-revolution-v3__p0337__c1""]",0.85,y,
productivity_of_labour,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,REFORMULATED,"Marx defines productivity of labour as a technical/social transformation that shortens socially necessary labour time and requires a revolution of the mode of production (e.g., c3, c1). Trotsky uses the same term but locates productivity gains in piece‑work incentives within commodity circulation, linking them to mass output, price changes and inequality (e.g., c0, c5), thereby shifting its theoretical role from a revolutionary condition to a market‑based incentive effect.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0335__c3"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0335__c1""]","[""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0082__c0"", ""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0114__c5""]",0.78,y,
imperialism,mixed_marx_engels,mao,EXTENDED,"Mao retains Marx’s core idea of imperialism as a stage of capitalist exploitation (e.g., the ""imperialist epoch"" and colonial domination in Marx’s claims) but adds new components: he links imperialism to domestic landlord and comprador classes, frames it as a concrete enemy in the Chinese revolutionary struggle, and emphasizes mass anti‑imperialist propaganda. This broadens the concept beyond Marx’s abstract stage to a specific national‑political context.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v4__p0052__c3"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0942__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p1015__c0""]","[""mao_oppose-book-worship-mao-zedong__p0005__c1"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0002__c0"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0007__c5""]",0.86,y,
surplus_value,stalin,mao,INSUFFICIENT,"The provided Stalin passages discuss exploitation under capitalism and slavery without mentioning surplus value, while Mao's passages focus on merchant and peasant exploitation without using the term surplus value. Because neither set of claims explicitly addresses the concept of surplus value, we cannot determine how Mao's later treatment relates to Stalin's earlier one.",[],[],0.9,y,
socialism,mixed_marx_engels,mao,REFORMULATED,"The earlier Marx‑Engels passages describe socialism as a humanist, moral order that replaces wealth/poverty with a ""rich human being"" and gives equal social significance to wealth and poverty, emphasizing anthropology and anarchic ideals. Mao’s statements treat socialism as a concrete historical stage of material distribution (""from each according to ability, to each according to work"") and a phase to be reached after a bourgeois‑democratic revolution, shifting the term from a moral‑humanist concept to a material‑political one. This change in core content warrants a reformulation label.","[""mixed_marx_engels_manuscripts-1844__p0111__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0581__c2""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0095__c2"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0265__c5""]",0.85,y,
capital_profit,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,EXTENDED,"Luxemburg retains the terms ground rent and capital profit and treats them as forms of revenue accruing to owners, preserving their basic meaning as returns to land and capital. She expands the concept by situating it within the overall division of surplus labour in the capitalist economy, adding a macro‑economic framing absent in Marx/Engels' inverse‑relationship description.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v4__p0661__c3"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v4__p0661__c4""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0258__c1"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0258__c6""]",0.85,y,
opportunism,lenin,stalin,EXTENDED,"Lenin defines opportunism as a lack of firm principles and a tendency to adopt any formula, characterising an opportunist wing that undermines centralist party discipline. Stalin retains this negative sense but extends it by labeling the ""theory of spontaneity""—which downplays conscious, vanguard leadership—as a specific form of opportunism, adding a new theoretical mechanism to the concept.","[""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0160__c1"", ""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0160__c2"", ""lenin_lenin-one-step-forward__p0003__c0""]","[""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c0"", ""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c4""]",0.86,y,
private_property,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Luxemburg keeps Marx’s core meaning of private property as ownership of the means of production (e.g., earlier claim c1) but applies it to the French Third Republic’s attempt to replace clan communism with bourgeois private property, focusing on legal‑political mechanisms (later claims p0392 c0, c3, c4). She does not alter the theoretical definition, merely situates it in a new historical context.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0755__c1"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0755__c6""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0392__c0"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0392__c3"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0392__c4""]",0.85,y,
revolutionary_agency,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,EXTENDED,"Luxemburg retains the Marxist claim that the proletariat itself must be the agent of overthrow (e.g., Marx’s insistence that ""the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves"" and that only a practical revolution drives history). She adds new elements—mass strike tactics, the necessity of political education, and the role of schools as revolutionary tools—expanding the original notion of revolutionary agency without abandoning its core.","[""mixed_marx_engels_critique-gotha-programme__p0031__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology-v1__p0029__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology-v1__p0030__c1""]","[""luxemburg_mass-str__p0027__c2"", ""luxemburg_mass-str__p0027__c3"", ""luxemburg_the-national-question-luxemburg__p0199__c1""]",0.92,y,
primitive_accumulation,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,EXTENDED,"Marx and Engels describe primitive accumulation as the forcible expropriation of peasants and creation of a free proletariat through land grabs and capitalist expansion. Trotsky retains the core idea of a tendency toward accumulation but locates it in a planned‑economy context, attributing it to scarcity ('want') and 'pores' of the system, thereby adding a new mechanism and scope. This extends rather than merely restates or merely contextualizes the concept.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0716__c4"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0716__c5"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0450__c7""]","[""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0251__c5""]",0.78,y,
spontaneity,mixed_marx_engels,stalin,CONTESTED,"Stalin explicitly denounces the 'theory of spontaneity' as opportunist and contrary to the vanguard party, whereas Marx and Engels describe spontaneity as a natural, unplanned emergence of worker action and cooperation. He retains the term but argues against its earlier positive or neutral valuation.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0381__c5"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0727__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0727__c3""]","[""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c0"", ""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c1"", ""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c3""]",0.9,y,
instrument_of_production,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,REFORMULATED,"Trotsky uses the term 'instrument of production' to compare the material quality of Soviet‑made production equipment with consumer goods, focusing on manufacturing standards. Marx and Engels employ the term to distinguish natural versus created instruments and to describe individuals' social role within division of labour, a fundamentally different theoretical content.","[""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology-v1__p0043__c1"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology-v1__p0043__c2""]","[""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0204__c0"", ""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0204__c2""]",0.86,y,
soviet_power,lenin,luxemburg,CONTESTED,"Luxemburg retains the term ‘Soviet power’ but argues that in practice it suppresses freedoms, outlawing press and association and employing terror, directly contradicting Lenin’s positive portrayal of Soviets as democratic, emancipatory organs of the proletariat. This explicit criticism shows she contests Lenin’s earlier positive treatment while keeping the concept.","[""lenin_renegade-kautsky__p0026__c4"", ""lenin_renegade-kautsky__p0028__c0"", ""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0099__c6""]","[""luxemburg_the-russian-revolution-luxemburg__p0042__c1"", ""luxemburg_the-russian-revolution-luxemburg__p0051__c3"", ""luxemburg_the-russian-revolution-luxemburg__p0039__c0""]",0.9,y,
vanguard_party,stalin,mao,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Mao retains Stalin's core idea that the Communist Party must lead and guide the masses, but he applies it to the Chinese revolutionary context—emphasizing party propaganda in the countryside and the indispensable role of Party representatives within Red Army units—without rejecting the vanguard principle. This shows adaptation to new historical conditions rather than a substantive change of the concept.","[""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c0"", ""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0023__c3"", ""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0022__c1"", ""stalin_foundations-leninism__p0054__c0""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0063__c0"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0063__c4"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0047__c4"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0032__c2""]",0.78,y,
law_of_value,mixed_marx_engels,lenin,PRESERVED,"Lenin’s statement that Volume III of Capital solves how the average rate of profit is formed on the basis of the law of value restates Marx’s earlier claim that an equal average profit can arise on the basis of the law of value, without adding new elements. Both treat the law of value as the theoretical basis for profit formation.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v3__p0012__c0""]","[""lenin_karl-marx__p0026__c2""]",0.78,y,
capitalist_class,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,PRESERVED,"Luxemburg restates Marx and Engels' description of the capitalist class as the sole holder and circulator of money and as one of only two classes (capitalist and working class), echoing the earlier claims about general accumulation of money‑capital and the binary class structure without adding fundamentally new components.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0447__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0447__c1"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0447__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0447__c3"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0447__c4"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0433__c4"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0433__c5""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0343__c1"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0343__c2"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0343__c3"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0343__c4"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0074__c3"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0074__c4""]",0.85,y,
socialism,lenin,trotsky,EXTENDED,"Lenin describes socialism as the first, lower phase of communist society, a transitional stage marked by partial abolition of bourgeois law and a class struggle against private property. Trotsky retains the idea of socialism as a lower stage but expands the concept: he defines it as planned, harmonious production for human wants, stresses that collective ownership is only a legal premise, links socialism’s feasibility to the development of productive forces and an international economic basis, and emphasizes its role in creating conditions for socialist psychology. These additions extend Lenin’s core meaning with new theoretical components.","[""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0109__c2"", ""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0104__c3"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0086__c0""]","[""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p1409__c3"", ""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p1409__c4"", ""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p1409__c5"", ""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p1409__c8"", ""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0044__c5""]",0.85,y,
combined_uneven_development,lenin,trotsky,EXTENDED,"Trotsky takes Lenin’s observation of uneven development as a universal law and expands it into a new ‘law of combined development’ that explains how backward nations fuse archaic and modern elements, adding a theoretical mechanism and broader scope. The later claims explicitly derive this law from the universal unevenness Lenin described, thus extending the concept.","[""lenin_imperialism-highest-stage__p0069__c1"", ""lenin_imperialism-highest-stage__p0125__c5""]","[""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p0013__c4"", ""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p0012__c4"", ""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p0017__c2""]",0.86,y,
democracy,lenin,mao,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Lenin defines democracy in terms of formal equality, proletarian soviet structures and as a class‑based principle opposed to bourgeois liberalism. Mao invokes democracy as a national objective tied to independence, freedom and a legal national assembly that bridges reactionary rule to democratic rule, adapting the term to the Chinese anti‑imperialist struggle without explicitly revising Lenin’s theoretical core.","[""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0110__c3"", ""lenin_renegade-kautsky__p0102__c0"", ""lenin_lenin-one-step-forward__p0211__c3""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0265__c10"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0278__c0""]",0.78,y,
economism,lenin,trotsky,PRESERVED,"Lenin defines Economism as the tendency for workers to limit activity to economic (trade‑union) struggles while Marxist intelligentsia align with liberals for political work (e.g., lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0017__c1‑c2). Trotsky describes the Economists as arguing that Iskra remains in the realm of theory and they should lead the concrete labor movement (trotsky_in-defense-of-marxism-trotsky__p0084__c5), which mirrors the same core idea of separating economic activity from revolutionary politics. Thus Trotsky’s treatment restates Lenin’s concept with essentially the same content and scope.","[""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0017__c1"", ""lenin_what-is-to-be-done__p0017__c2""]","[""trotsky_in-defense-of-marxism-trotsky__p0084__c5"", ""trotsky_lessons-of-october-trotsky__p0018__c5""]",0.92,y,
primitive_democracy,mixed_marx_engels,lenin,EXTENDED,"Lenin keeps the core idea of primitive democracy as a form where the state is not a separate power over the people (as in Marx/Engels' description of direct assembly rule), but he adds new components: linking it to a necessary stage in the transition to socialism, to the reduction of state servants' wages, and to the modern simplification of state functions. This expands the original concept’s scope beyond ancient polis contexts.","[""mixed_marx_engels_origin-family__p0099__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_origin-family__p0099__c1"", ""mixed_marx_engels_origin-family__p0099__c2""]","[""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0047__c0"", ""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0047__c1"", ""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0047__c2""]",0.86,y,
commodity_production,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,PRESERVED,"Both thinkers describe commodity production as the universal or general form of production and link it to the circulation/ownership of money. The later thinker restates the earlier claim that the universal form is commodity production and adds that this entails money circulation, which is already implicit in the earlier M‑C circuit description.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0046__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0046__c3""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0055__c6"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0074__c1""]",0.9,y,
base_superstructure,stalin,mao,REFORMULATED,"Stalin presents a strictly deterministic base‑superstructure relation, asserting that material life (the economic base) is primary and ideas, institutions and the spiritual realm are merely reflections of it. Mao retains the terminology but explicitly argues that, under certain conditions, the superstructure (relations of production, theory, politics, culture) can become the principal and decisive factor, thereby altering the core deterministic role assigned to the base. This change in theoretical role constitutes a reformulation of the concept.","[""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0016__c0"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0016__c1"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0026__c0""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0326__c1"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0326__c5""]",0.86,y,
surplus_value,stalin,trotsky,INSUFFICIENT,"Stalin's excerpts discuss exploitation and class relations but never mention surplus value or define it, while Trotsky's excerpts explicitly define surplus product/value and its appropriation. Because the earlier claims do not address the concept, we cannot judge whether Trotsky preserves, extends, or reforms it.","[""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0033__c2"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0035__c4""]","[""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0001__c1"", ""trotsky_terrorism-communism-trotsky__p0159__c0""]",0.85,y,
historical_materialism,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,EXTENDED,"Trotsky restates the core historical‑materialist claim that the development of the forces of production determines the social‑historical process (earlier claim p0022__c3), but he adds new components – a methodological emphasis on analysis of social relations, a claim that Marxism can forecast concrete revolutionary developments, and a focus on party action in the Russian Revolution – thereby extending the original formulation.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0022__c3"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0022__c0""]","[""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0001__c0"", ""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0034__c1"", ""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0107__c0""]",0.85,y,
surplus_value,mixed_marx_engels,mao,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Mao’s excerpts describe merchants, landlords and usurers extracting profit and exploiting peasants, echoing Marx’s core idea that surplus value stems from exploitation of producers, but they situate the analysis in Chinese rural trade and land relations without redefining the theoretical term itself.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0162__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0165__c6"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0172__c0""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0040__c1"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0113__c1"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0120__c0""]",0.78,y,
dialectics,mixed_marx_engels,mao,EXTENDED,"Mao retains the core idea that dialectics is a method for dealing with contradictions (the earlier claim links dialectics to abolishing fixed ideas), but he adds a more detailed definition—splitting a whole into contradictory parts and the unity of opposites—thereby extending the concept’s content and scope.","[""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0221__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0221__c1""]","[""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0410__c0"", ""mao_mao-selected-works-1__p0410__c1""]",0.86,y,
capital_accumulation_crisis,mixed_marx_engels,stalin,EXTENDED,"Stalin retains Marx’s core idea that capitalist development leads to periodic over‑production crises (e.g., Marx’s “periodic cycle… whose crowning point is the universal crisis” and “over‑production… crisis”), but he adds new explanatory elements – the role of fully developed productive forces, the ruin of the mass, and the claim that socialist production avoids such crises – thereby extending the original formulation.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0024__c4"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0457__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0457__c1""]","[""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0034__c0"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0034__c3""]",0.85,y,
money,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,REJECTED,"Trotsky argues that Soviet money no longer functions as a universal equivalent or a measure of value, claiming it has ""ceased to be money"" and is merely a state‑designated label, which directly repudiates Marx’s earlier definition of money as a commodity that serves as the universal equivalent and the form of value expression. This rejects the earlier concept rather than merely adapting or contesting it.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0107__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0107__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0109__c0""]","[""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0066__c2"", ""trotsky_revolution-betrayed-trotsky__p0066__c3""]",0.86,y,
provisional_government,lenin,trotsky,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Lenin discusses the provisional revolutionary government as a theoretical outcome of a victorious popular insurrection and argues the party should not aim to join it, while Trotsky describes the concrete Provisional Government of 1917 as dependent on official democratic support and subject to Kerensky's conditions. Trotsky therefore adapts the term to a specific historical situation without explicitly rejecting Lenin’s earlier theoretical framing.","[""lenin_two-tactics__p0016__c1"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0075__c1""]","[""trotsky_ebook-history-of-the-russian-revolution-v1__p0220__c1"", ""trotsky_ebook-history-of-the-russian-revolution-v2__p0376__c0""]",0.78,y,
past_labour,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,EXTENDED,"Luxemburg retains Marx’s core idea that past labour is embodied in capital (e.g., Marx’s claim that value includes past labour) but adds a macro‑level claim that society hoards a stock of past labour that exceeds the annual labour needed for reproduction, treating past labour as a surplus reserve. This broadens the concept beyond Marx’s focus on commodity value to a systemic, reproductive function.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v3__p0325__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v3__p0325__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v4__p1158__c5""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0065__c4"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0065__c5"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0065__c8""]",0.9,y,
state,lenin,trotsky,REFORMULATED,"Lenin treats the state as a class‑based political authority that will wither away after a proletarian revolution (e.g., lenin_state-and-revolution__p0068__c0) and emphasizes its bureaucratic, repressive origins (lenin_state-and-revolution__p0028__c1). Trotsky, by contrast, describes the state as an agent that accelerates economic development, grafts industry onto a natural economic base, and mediates foreign influence (trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0006__c1, trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0006__c2). The term “state” is retained, but its core theoretical role shifts from a tool of class oppression destined to disappear to a developmental apparatus, indicating a reformulation.","[""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0068__c0"", ""lenin_state-and-revolution__p0028__c1""]","[""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0006__c1"", ""trotsky_results-prospects-trotsky__p0006__c2""]",0.86,y,
proletariat,lenin,luxemburg,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Lenin defines the proletariat as the revolutionary class whose political interests demand democratic liberty and eventual dictatorship, focusing on class struggle against bourgeois forces. Luxemburg retains this core meaning but applies the proletariat to the specific national context of Poland, urging it to shape national self‑government and defend self‑determination, without altering the underlying theory of the proletariat’s role.","[""lenin_two-tactics__p0007__c0"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0086__c4"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0086__c8""]","[""luxemburg_the-national-question-luxemburg__p0094__c2"", ""luxemburg_the-national-question-luxemburg__p0094__c8""]",0.78,y,
peasantry_as_revolutionary_base,lenin,luxemburg,CONTESTED,"Luxemburg characterizes the peasantry as a passive, conservative force that preserves national traditions and cannot serve as an active revolutionary element, directly opposing Lenin’s view that the peasantry contains revolutionary elements and should be mobilized as an ally of the proletariat. Both use the term ‘peasantry’ but Luxemburg rejects its revolutionary role as Lenin asserts.","[""lenin_two-tactics__p0034__c2"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0103__c0"", ""lenin_two-tactics__p0049__c0""]","[""luxemburg_the-national-question-luxemburg__p0205__c0"", ""luxemburg_the-national-question-luxemburg__p0205__c2"", ""luxemburg_the-national-question-luxemburg__p0205__c3""]",0.95,y,
surplus_value,mixed_marx_engels,stalin,CONTEXTUALIZED,"Stalin retains the Marxist link between surplus value and exploitation but situates it in a new historical context, asserting that in the socialist USSR exploitation (and thus surplus value) no longer exists, whereas Marx defines surplus value as the excess produced in capitalist circulation. The later claims (e.g., p0035 c4‑c6) adapt the concept to a different mode of production rather than redefining or rejecting it outright.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0162__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0165__c6""]","[""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0035__c4"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0035__c6""]",0.78,y,
realism,mixed_marx_engels,lenin,CONTESTED,"Lenin explicitly criticizes realism as a philistine trend that attempts to smuggle materialism and rejects Engels' acceptance of realism as a neutral category, whereas Marx/Engels simply list realism as one of three basic philosophical categories of history. Thus Lenin contests the earlier positive treatment while retaining the term.","[""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0131__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_german-ideology__p0135__c0""]","[""lenin_lenin-materialism-and-empirio-criticism__p0385__c0"", ""lenin_lenin-materialism-and-empirio-criticism__p0386__c2""]",0.85,y,
lumpenproletariat,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,REFORMULATED,"Luxemburg retains the term lumpenproletariat but shifts its meaning from Marx’s description of a marginal, outcast, crisis‑swollen class (e.g., c0, c2) to an integral, inseparable element of bourgeois society that functions as a counter‑revolutionary enemy (e.g., c1, c3). This change alters the core theoretical role of the concept.","[""mixed_marx_engels_eighteenth-brumaire__p0148__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_eighteenth-brumaire__p0148__c2""]","[""luxemburg_the-russian-revolution-luxemburg__p0047__c1"", ""luxemburg_the-russian-revolution-luxemburg__p0047__c3""]",0.86,y,
bourgeoisie,mixed_marx_engels,trotsky,EXTENDED,"Trotsky retains the Marxist core idea of the bourgeoisie as a ruling capitalist class, but adds new evaluative and historical dimensions—its unprecedented scoundrelism, political incapacity, and specific Russian context—thereby extending the concept beyond Marx and Engels’ more general description of its revolutionary role and parliamentary dominance.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0954__c0"", ""mixed_marx_engels_eighteenth-brumaire__p0040__c1""]","[""trotsky_terrorism-communism-trotsky__p0198__c1"", ""trotsky_lessons-of-october-trotsky__p0025__c3"", ""trotsky_history-of-the-russian-revolution-trotsky__p0020__c2""]",0.86,y,
accumulation,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,CONTESTED,"Luxemburg retains the term accumulation but explicitly challenges Marx’s earlier formulation, arguing that his scheme omits the crucial money stage, creates hoarding problems, and fails to resolve inter‑departmental circulation, even noting Marx’s own later remarks undermine his prior treatment. This constitutes a direct contestation of the earlier content while keeping the concept.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0569__c2"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0569__c3"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0569__c4"", ""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v1__p0569__c6""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0122__c0"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0122__c2"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0133__c3"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0138__c0""]",0.86,y,
working_class,mixed_marx_engels,luxemburg,PRESERVED,"Both Marx/Engels and Luxemburg describe the working class as one of only two classes in capitalist society, the other being the capitalist class that owns the means of production. Luxemburg's statements echo the earlier claim without adding new components or altering the core meaning.","[""mixed_marx_engels_capital-v2__p0447__c1""]","[""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0343__c3"", ""luxemburg_accumulation-capital__p0343__c4""]",0.86,y,
surplus_value,lenin,stalin,INSUFFICIENT,"Lenin’s excerpts explicitly define surplus value as the excess produced by labor beyond its own value, linking it to exploitation and the rate of exploitation. Stalin’s provided excerpts discuss exploitation and class struggle in capitalism and the absence of exploitation in socialism, but never mention the term “surplus value” or its specific Marxist definition, so the relation cannot be judged from the given evidence.","[""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c3"", ""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c5"", ""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c7"", ""lenin_karl-marx__p0022__c10""]","[""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0035__c4"", ""stalin_d-and-h-materialism-stalin__p0035__c6""]",0.9,y,