A clear puzzle: Marxist ideology powered Revolutionary Socialist (RS) armed groups into formidable threats during the Cold War, yet their superior insurgent capacity did not produce more victories. This study explains that paradox by connecting ideology, organization, civilian ties, and state responses.

🔎 How the historical evidence was compared

• Comparative, historical analysis of civil wars during the Cold War era contrasts conflicts featuring RS rebels with other civil wars.
• Focus centers on variation in organization, civilian interactions, violence intensity, duration, and outcomes.

🎯 What RS organization and doctrine looked like

• RS groups combined transformational aims with transnational networks.
• Revolutionary war doctrine emphasized a highly integrated political–military organization.
• That organization sought to weave a dense web of interactions with civilian populations to sustain insurgency and governance.

🔥 Key findings

• RS-led civil wars were 'robust insurgencies': they lasted longer and produced more battlefield fatalities than other civil wars.
• Despite superior capacity on the battlefield, RS rebels did not win at higher rates—the “Marxist Paradox.”
• The paradox is explained by strategic interactions: by posing credible, high-level threats, RS rebellions provoked powerful regime counter-mobilizations that undercut rebel victories.

🧭 Why this matters for understanding conflict

• Ideology shaped not only rebel organization and violence but also elicited specific state responses; the Cold War context made RS insurgencies both potent and vulnerable.
• Findings illuminate how the ideological character of armed groups can generate strengths that simultaneously trigger countervailing forces, with implications for interpreting contemporary civil conflicts.