On Radicalism A Study of Political Methods in the Shadow

Land between Activism and Terrorism  

                        Sophie Sjöqvist Uppsala Universi ty Poli t ical Science Bachelorettes thesis 2014 Instructor: Katarina Barrl ing

  2  

 

LIST OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ON RADICALISM 4

METHODOLOGY 8

THE SELECTION OF ORGANISATIONS AND INFORMANTS 8 THE INTERVIEWS 12 THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS 12 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 12

ANALYSIS OF FOUR ACCOUNTS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 13

ANTIFASCISTISK AKTION VÄST 13 ALLT ÅT ALLA UPPSALA 16 NORDISK UNGDOM 18 SVENSKA MOTSTÅNDSRÖRELSEN SUMMARY 22

CONCLUSION 22

REFERENCES 24

APPENDIX 26

 

  3  

Introduction If   the   spectrum   of   political   extra-­‐parliamentary   groups   is   vast,   the   range   of   their  methods   of   participating   in   political   life   is   even   vaster.   The   span   of   the   activities   and  practices   used   reaches   from   peaceful   undertakings,   like   pamphlet   distribution   and  poster  placarding,  to  warlike  deeds  such  as  the  killing  of  clueless  civilians.  The  common  factor  of  these  acts  is  that  they  are  all  executed  to  reach  political  goals.  Aside  from  that,  the   dissimilarity   is   immeasurable.   In   the   attempt   to   describe   political   methods   of  participation  among  such  groups,  it  is  therefore  useful  to  create  a  categorisation  to  give  us  a  better  general  understanding  of  this  vast  landscape.  Conventionally,  a  line  has  been  drawn  between   legal  and   illegal  methods  of  participation  to  do  so,  where   the  usage  of  illegal  methods,  and  especially  violence,  often  have  been  stamped  directly  as  terrorism.  However,   this   way   of   categorizing   methods   of   activism   can   be   quite   an   obtuse  instrument   to   use,   especially   when   attempting   to   understand   groups   using   illegal  methods.  A  more  delicate  tool  is  needed  to  enhance  the  understanding  of  such  groups.      The  aim  of  this  paper  is  to  show  that  there  is  an  important  distinction  between  political  radicalism  and  the  previously  more  salient  categories  of  political  activism:  activism  and  terrorism.  More  precisely,   the  question  asked   is   the   following:   Is   there  any  support   for  the  need  of   radicalism  as  a  way  of   classifying  political   activist   groups?  The  distinction  has  not  been  entirely  clear  in  previous  research  on  political  participation  among  activist  groups,   and   this   study   intends   to   show   why   the   distinction   is   vital   to   attain   a   more  nuanced   perception   of   the   field.     It   means   to   do   so   through   analysing   methods   of  political   participation   among   Swedish   extra-­‐parliamentary   groups   with   revolutionary  agendas.  The  result  will   show  a  deficiency   in   the  way  political  actions  has   so   far  been  defined,   and   suggest   a   stronger   emphasis   on   radicalism   as   its   own   subcategory   to  political  participation  in  the  future.      This   study   is   partitioned   into   two   different   main   sections:   the   first   one   provides   a  theoretical  framework  for  the  research  field  of  political  participation  and  a  background  to   the   concept   of   radicalism.   It   also   presents   a   classification   of   political  methods   that  aims  to  show  the  importance  of  radicalism  as  a  subcategory  of  political  participation  of  its  own.  Already  at   this  point,   it   should  be  alleged   that   this  classification   is  very  much  based  upon  previous  research  and   that   this   study’s  aim   is   to  clarify   the   importance  of  properly   making   this   distinction.   In   the   second   section,   an   analysis   of   the   interview  material   will   be   performed,   to   show   that   there   is   a   proper   empirical   foundation   for  distinguishing  radicalism*  as  its  own  subcategory  parted  from  activism  and  terrorism.  In  between  the  two,  the  methodology  used  will  be  discussed.        

                                                                                                               *  To  clarify,  all  of  the  groups  interviewed  are  radical  in  the  sense  that  they  have  what  is  usually  called  radical  opinions,  meaning  their  opinions  are  extreme  relatively  to  mainstream  political  views.  However,  the  opinions  are  not  the  goal  of  this  categorization.  Rather,  what  we  hope  to  achieve  here  is  a  classification  of  the  practical  methods  of  the  groups,  to  be  able  to  determine  radicalism  as  an  important  sub  category  of  political  actions  (and  not  thought  and  opinions).  

  4  

Theoretical  framework:  On  radicalism    The   field   of   research   on   which   this   study   is   based   and  wishes   to   build   on,   is   that   of  political  participation.   Because  of   the   vastness  of   this   area  of   study,   it   is   unrealistic   to  give   a   full   description   of   the   diverse   means   and   methods   that   have   been   created   to  understand  the  different  modes  of  such  participation.  Rather,  this  section  means  to  give  a  critical  account  of  the  background  to  the  type  of  political  participation  relevant  for  this  paper,   namely   the   more   active,   or   if   so   preferred,   aggressive   forms   of   political  participation  often  seen  among  extra-­‐parliamentary  groups.      There   is   no   conclusive   definition   of   what   constitutes   political   participation.  Traditionally,   it   has   been   seen   as   the   usage   of   more   conventional   methods,   such   as  becoming  a  member  of  a  political  party  or  signing  a  petition,  to  affect  the  rule  of  a  state.  Verba   and   Nie   (1972)   argues   that   political   participation   refers   to   those   activities   by  private   citizens   that   are   more   or   less   directly   aimed   at   influencing   the   selection   of  governmental  personnel  and/or  the  actions  they  take.  This   type  of  definition   is  common  still   at   present   day.   Riley   (2010)   defines   it   as   a   set   of   rights   and   duties   that   involve  formally   organized   civic   and   political   activities   (i.e.   voting,   or   joining   a   political   party).  Definitions  such  as  these  largely  exclude  more  extravagant  forms  of  activism,  as  well  as  participation   that   are   not   aimed   directly   at   affecting   the   government.   Thus,   such  definitions  largely  reject  the  kind  of  participation  pertinent  for  this  study,  namely  extra-­‐parliamentary  political  action.        However,   there   are   more   comprehensive   definitions   as   well.   A   common   way   of  including   more   “extreme”   methods   of   participation   is   to   separate   legal   and   illegal  behaviour.   Muller   (1981)   differentiates   democratic   participation,   which   is   defined   as  conventional   methods   (voting,   contacting   politicians)   and   unconventional   methods  (boycotts  and  demonstrations)  of   legal  political  activities   in  democracies,   to  aggressive  participation,  defined  as  civil  disobedience  and  political  violence.  The  concept  relevant  for   this   study,   namely   that   of   political   activism   (which   in   it   self   is   a   sub   category   to  political   participation),   lies   somewhere   in-­‐between   these   two   categories.   Groups   that  call  themselves  activists  often  perform  activities  that  could  be  categorized  under  both  of  these   categories,   and   therefore   the   line   between   them   can   be   quite   blurred.   Let   us  illustrate   this   with   an   example.   A   common   method   used   by   activist   groups   is   to  demonstrate.  During  such  demonstrations,  acts  of  civilian  disobedience  are  not  unusual.  In   fact,   many   demonstrations   are   in   themselves   acts   of   civilian   disobedience.   To  illustrate  even  further:  the  1  of  may  2014,  Christian  activists  demonstrated  against  the  etno-­‐nationalistic   group   Svenskarnas   Parti   (the   Party   of   the   Swedish)   through   sitting  down  in  the  middle  of  the,  by  Swedish  authorities  pre-­‐determined,  marked-­‐out  route  for  Svenskarnas  Parti.  When  the  police  told  them  to  move,  they  refused  and  eventually  they  were  dragged  of  the  road  and  later  convicted.  This  was  a  demonstration,  but  also  an  act  of   civilian   disobedience.   The   point   being   made   is   that   it   is   possible   to   problematize  Muller’s  dichotomous  definition  of  political  participation,  through  a  closer  investigation  of  methods   used   by   extra-­‐parliamentary   activist   groups.   To   clarify,   since  many   extra-­‐parliamentary  groups  acts  somewhere  in-­‐between  Muller’s  two  categories,  it  is  useful  to  

  5  

further   explore   whether   new   categorizations   can   be   made   to   achieve   a   better  understanding  of  them.  Muller’s  categorisation  is  not  sufficient  to  do  so.  A  definition  that  better  captures  activist  behaviour  is  Corning  and  Myer’s  (2002)  definition  of  activism  as  a  range  of  behaviours  spanning   from  low  risk,  passive  and   institutionalized  acts   to  high-­‐risk,  active  and  unconventional  behaviours.   It  shows  the  vide  range  of  methods  that  can  be  used  by  the  same  group  but  still  be  called  activist.  However,  the  aim  of  this  paper  is  to  show  the  need  of  an  even  more  nuanced  classification  of  such  methods,  namely  to  make  a  distinction  between  activism,  radicalism  and  terrorism.        To   find   research   previously   conducted   on   radicalism   as   its   own   concept   has   proven  quite  difficult,  since  it  often  has  been  hidden  within  the  notions  of  activisms  (see  Corning  and  Myers;   2002)   and   terrorism   (Futrell   &   Brents,   2003;   Gunning,   2004).   The   actual  word  radicalism  has  very  rarely  been  used  within  the  field  of  political  activism.  Instead,  when  classifying  groups,  the  distinction  seems  to  have  been  lying  between  activism  and  terrorism.   That   is,  what   this   paper   argues   to   be   characteristics   of   radicalism  has   been  defined   as   characteristics   of   both   activism   and   terrorism.  However,   by   only   using   the  notions   of   activism   as   opposed   to   terrorism   to   describe   the   landscape   of   political  activism  among  extra-­‐parliamentary  groups,  an  important  middle  stage  in  which  much  of   the  extra-­‐parliamentary  action   takes  place   is   likely   to  be  missed.  To   clarify   further;  within   the   research   field   of   political   activism,   certain   common   subcategories   can   be  distinguished.  Traditionally  these  seem  to  have  been  activism  and  terrorism.  This  paper  argues  that  radicalism  also  should  be  a  subcategory  of  its  own,  making  the  scale  looking  like   this:   activism   –   radicalism   –   terrorism.   In   doing   this,   a   more   nuanced   image   of  political  activism  can  be  attained.      Moskalenko   and   McCauley   (2009)   have   conducted   one   of   the   few   studies   in   which  radicalism   has   been   included   as   its   own   concept.   They   argue   there   is   an   important  difference   between   activism   and   radicalism.   If   Muller   categorized   modes   of   political  participation  into  legal  and  illegal  behaviour,  Moskalenko  and  McCauley  made  the  same  categorization,  but  for  political  activism.  The  definition  of  radicalism,  which  this  paper  is  based  on,   comes  originally   from   this   study.  They  make  a  distinction  between  activism  and  radicalism;  suggesting  that  activism  is  confined  to   legal  methods,  while  radicalism  extends  also  to  illegal  behaviour.  However,  they  do  not  develop  the  distinction  between  radicalism  and  terrorism  in  a  satisfying  way,  even  though  they  say  that  radicalism  is  not  the   same   as   terrorism   and   that   the   distinction   between   radicalism   and   terrorism   is   an  important  one.  Building  on  Moskalenko  and  McCauley,  this  paper  aims  to  demonstrate  in  a  clearer  way  that  radicalism  can  be  a  subcategory  of  its  own,  differentiated  from  both  activism  and  terrorism.    

  6  

 To  elucidate  further:  political  participation  is  seen  as  a  field  with  many  subcategories  and  political  activism  is  one  of  them.  In  return,  political  activism  also  has  its  own  subcategories  and  this  is  what  Moskalenko   and   McCauley   have   begun   to   distinguish.   What   we   are   interested   in   here   is  distinguishing  radicalism  as  such  a  subcategory.  

 To  do  so,  we  must  define  in  a  more  distinct  manner  the  meaning  of  activism,  radicalism  and  terrorism,  the  difference  between  the  latter  two  being  the  most  problematic  one.  Let  us  begin  with  the  difference  between  activism  and  radicalism.  What  this  paper  argues  to  be  an  important  distinction  to  activism,  namely  radicalism,  has  often  been  seen  as  a  part  of  the  concept  of  activism.  Moskalenko  and  McCauley,  however,  did  create  a  seemingly  straightforward  distinction.  Activism  is  the  intention  to  use  only  legal  methods  to  reach  political  goals,  while  radicalism  is  the  usage  of  illegal  methods  to  do  the  same.    

 It   is   possible   to   problematize   this   definition   by   discussing   in   what   category   civilian  disobedience  (here  defined  as  an  openly  conducted,  non-­‐violent  disobedience  of  a  law  or  command,  with  the  readiness  to  individually  meet  the  consequences  of  this  act)  should  be   placed.   Strictly,   it   is   illegal   and   should   therefore   be   considered   as   radicalism.  However,  many  activists  would  probably  not  agree  with  this  narrow  classification.  Many  of   the  practitioners  of   civilian  disobedience  might  believe   in   following   the   laws  of   the  juridical   system   of   the   state   they   live   in,   but   they   might   still   want   to   show   there  discontent  with  it  somehow.  Therefore  they  occasionally  disobey,  and  are  ready  to  face  the  consequences  of   it  as   individuals   (and  not  as  a  group)  afterwards.   In  other  words,  they  do  somehow  accept  the  systems  monopoly  of  violence  over  them  even  though  they  wish  to  change  it,  and  therefore  it  might  be  considered  activism.  The  key  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  prepared  to  be  convicted  as  individuals  for  their  actions,  and  does  not  only  claim  responsibility  as  a  group.  It  is  a  form  of  legal  law  disobedience.  The  illegal  methods  belonging  to  radicalism  is  different:  the  performer  of  the  illegal  acts  is  not  ready  to  face  the  consequences  of  his  or  her  actions,  because  he  or  she  does  not  accept  the  monopoly  of   violence   the   state   claims   over   them   and   therefore   might   not   accept   neither   the  illegality  of   the  act  nor   the  consequences   that  state  has  put  upon  such  an  act.  Another  important   difference   is   also   that   the   committers   of   the   illegal   acts   belonging   to  radicalism  do  not  strive  to  take  individual  responsibility  for  an  act,  but  only  claim  it  as  a  group   (which   means   they   cannot   be   legally   convicted).   This   is   no   longer   civilian  

Political  participation  

Political  Activism  

Actvism   Radicalism   Terrorism  

  7  

disobedience  but   illegal  acts  performed   for  a  political   cause.  These  are   the  differences  between  activism  and  radicalism.    Let   us   now   discuss   the   slightly  more   complicated   distinction   between   radicalism   and  terrorism.  Intuitively  it  is  fairly  straightforward:  Not  all  political  violence  can  be  said  to  be  terror.  That  is  to  say,  every  act  of  political  violence  is  not  “intended  to  cause  death  or  serious   bodily   harm   to   civilians   or   non-­‐combatants   with   the   purpose   of   intimidating   a  population  or  compelling  a  government  or  an  international  organization  to  do  or  abstain  from   doing   any   act†”.   This   is   the   definition   of   terrorism   used   in   this   paper,   but   it   is  imperative   to   stress   that   there   is   great   dispute   of   what   constitutes   terrorism,   both  within   the   scientific   world   and   in   the   international   political   arena.   This   is   a   fact   that  unquestionably  complicates   this  distinction.  Nevertheless,   if   the  alternative   is   to  make  no  distinction  at  all  and  let  it  continually  be  non-­‐existent,  it  is  better  to  make  an  attempt.      This  paper  argues  that  the  difference  between  radicalism  and  terrorism  can  be  said  to  lie   with   the   target   of   the   violent   attack.   It   can   also,   to   some   extent,   be   the   degree   to  which   the   target   is   seen   as   a   direct   threat   or   not.   However,   the   latter   is   more  complicated   than   the   former.   Commencing   with   the   former,   one   can   see   that   a  differentiation   can  be  made  between  when   targets  have  a   clear  understanding  of  why  they  are  being  attacked,  and  when  they  do  not.  What   is   typical   for  a   terrorist  attack   is  that  the  civilians  being  harmed  do  not  know  the  reason  for  this.  They  might  have  a  vague  clue   of   the   idea   that   lies   behind   the   violence,   but   they   do   often   feel   it   to   be   entirely  unprovoked   and   unexpected.   Consequently,   what   would   distinguish   radicalism   from  terrorism  in  this  example  is  that  the  target  of  typical  radical  violence  would  have  a  fairly  clear  idea  of  the  reason  to  why  they  are  being  attacked.  The  assault  might  be  unexpected  in  the  specific  moment  it  happens,  but  seen  long  term  such  attacks  are  expected  by  the  attacked  group,  and  they  are  also  likely  to  strike  back.  An  example  of  such  violence  could  be   when   groups   with   a   revolutionary   socialist   agenda   attacking   members   of   an  organisation   with   an   etno-­‐nationalistic   one   or   vice   versa.   This   cannot   be   seen   to   be  terrorism,   but   rather   radicalism.     A   second   differentiation   between   the   targets   of   a  radical   attack   and   those   of   a   terrorist   one   is   that   the   target   group   is   small   and   very  specific   in   the   case   of   a   radical   attack,   but   often   wide   and   unknown   in   the   case   of   a  terrorist  one.  As  already  mentioned,   targets  of   a   radical   group  could   for  example  be  a  specific  group  in  the  autonomous  left,  while  those  of  a  terrorist  group  are  civilians  that  do  not  even  know  the  offenders  exist.  A  final  difference  between  the  two  sub  categories  is   that   the   victims   of   a   radical   attack   are   likely   to   reciprocate   themselves,   while   the  victims  of  a  terrorist  one  are  not.    That  is,  a  radical  group  attack  groups  that  are  likely  to  individually  perform  a  counter  attack,  while  terrorists  attack  groups  that  are  likely  to  let  a  higher  instance  (for  example  the  state  and  the  army)  respond.  These  are  the  ways  in  which   radicalism   and   terrorism   differentiate.   There   can   also   be   discussions   about  whether   the   potential   threat   that   the   target   constitutes   for   the   attacker   is   another  

                                                                                                               †  This  is  a  definition  taken  from  the  High-­‐Level  Panel  on  Threats,  Challenge  and  Change,  a  panel  convened  by  the  UN  Secretary  General  in  2004.  The  definition  was  later  endorsed  by  the  Secretary  General  himself  (Kofi  Annan).    

  8  

distilling  factor  between  radicalism  and  terrorism.    This  factor,  however,  is  very  much  in  the   hand   of   the   aggressor,  who  might   see   the   target   as   a   threat   even   though   it   never  meant  to  be  threatening.  Therefore,  this  distinction  is  left  aside.      A  summary  of  the  three  sub-­‐categories  of  political  participation  

Activism   Radicalism   Terrorism  The  usage  of   legal  methods  and  civilian  disobedience  to  reach  political  goals.  For  an  illegal  act  to  be  classified  as  civilian   disobedience,   they  have   to   be   performed  openly,   without   violence  and   with   the   intention   of  facing   its   consequences  individually   according   to  the   laws   of   the   sate   it   is  committed  in.    

The   usage   of   illegal   acts   to  reach   political   goals.   The  performer   is   not   willing  and   does   not  mean   to   face  the   consequences   of   the  illegal   acts.   These   acts  include   physical   violence  but   are   only   used   against  specific   groups   or  individuals   who   are   aware  of   why   they   are   being  attacked   and   are   likely   to  reciprocate   individually  against  the  attacker.    

The   use   of   deadly   violence  or   violence   that   seriously  harms   its   victims   against  unspecific   civilians   or   non-­‐combatants   who   are   not  aware   of   why   they   are  being   attacked   and   are  unlikely   to   reciprocate   to  the  attack  themselves.    

 The  distinction  between  these  definitions  is  important  so  that  the  most  nuanced  image  possible  can  be  given  of  the  landscape  of  political  extra-­‐parliamentary  organisations.  If  we  do  not  strive  to  make  this  imaged  as  nuanced  as  possible,  we  might  miss  important  features  in  describing  this  landscape.      Methodology  The  analysis  in  this  paper  is  based  on  two  primary  sources  of  material;  interviews  with  individuals   central   to   the   extra-­‐parliamentary   organisations   in   question   and   relevant  literature.   Thus,   it   is   a   qualitative   study.   All   articles/literature   has   been   published   in  scientific   journals   and   are   therefore   seen   as   being   good   and   trustworthy   sources.  Therefore,   there   will   be   no   further   discussion   on   this.   In   the   following,   the   selection  process  of   the   interview   informants  will  be  reviewed,   followed  by  a  description  of   the  way  the  interviews  were  conducted  and  how  the  analytical  process  proceeded.  Finally,  there  will  be  a  discussion  about  the  validity  and  the  reliability  of  the  method  used.      The  selection  of  organisations  and  informants    The  subjects  for  the  interviews  were  chosen  in  three  stages.  Firstly,  extra-­‐parliamentary  organisations  were  chosen  as  the  population  of  the  study.  In  other  words,  this  excludes  all   sorts   of   political   parties   or   other   types   of   groups   that   are   parliamentary,   aims   at  becoming   parliamentary   or   have   very   strong   connections   to   parliamentarian   groups.  Examples  of  such  excluded  organisations  are  Svenskarnas  Parti  (the  Swedes  party)  and  political   youth   associations   connected   to   a   political   party   that   are   or   aims   at   being   in  parliament.   The   reason   for   this  was   that   there   are   several   known   cases  where   extra-­‐

  9  

parliamentary  groups  have  used  radical  methods  to  reach  political  goals.  Because  of  the  relatively   high   frequency   of   radical  methods   used,   it  was   concluded   that   this  was   the  best  population  to  show  the  difference  between  activism,  radicalism  and  terrorism.      The  second  stage  of  this  decision  was  to  confine  the  analysis  to  revolutionary  groups  on  the  very  left-­‐  and  right-­‐hand  side  of  the  political  spectrum,  and  thereby  exclude  groups  that  only  work  with  one  issue  (for  example  environmental  groups,  human  right  groups  and  pro-­‐migrant  groups).  This  was  also  largely  done  as  a  way  to  make  the  study  more  interesting.   Groups   with   only   one   issue   does   not   tend   to   be   revolutionary   and  subversive.  Examples  of  groups  that  are  excluded  are  Amnesty  International,  GreenPeace  and  Ingen  är  Illegal  (No  one  is  illegal),  which  all  are  organisations  with  a  political  agenda  but   without   a   specific   articulated   place   on   the   political   left-­‐right   scale   (even   though  some   would   argue   that   Greenpeace   is   closer   to   the   left   side   than   the   right).   Instead,  organizations  were  chosen  that  implicitly  or  explicitly  express  revolutionary  intentions  and  that  have  opinions  and  attitudes  that  are  commonly  understood  to  be  on  the  left  or  right-­‐hand   side   of   the   political   spectrum.   The   reason   for   this   was   similar   as   the   one  given  in  the  first  stage  of  this  process:  the  (relatively  to  other  groups)  extreme  left  and  right-­‐wing   organisations   tend   to   be   the   ones   that   use   methods   that   fit   in   to   the   sub  category  of   radicalism,  and   therefore   these  are   the  groups   that  are   the  best  objects  of  study  to  prove  that   it   is   important   to  distinguish  radicalism  as   its  own  subcategory.   In  other  words,  such  groups  are  seen  as  relevant  cases  for  the  thesis  this  paper  is  trying  to  prove.    In  the  following  I  present  each  one  of  these  organizations  and  the  arguments  for  why   they   are   relevant   for   this   study.   Generally,   the   participating   organizations   have  been  chosen  because  they  are  seen  as  the  most  important  ones  on  the  extreme  left-­‐  and  right-­‐hand  side.      Antifascistisk  Aktion,  Väst  (Anti  Fascistic  Action,  West)  Antifascistisk  Aktion  (AFA)  is  nationwide  network  of  organisations  that  “are  of  the  firm  belief  that  fascism  must  be  countered  ideologically  and  physically,  in  any  form  it  shows  it  self‡”.    It  is  included  in  this  study  as  part  of  the  autonomous  left§  and  is  a  pertinent  for  this   it   because   of   its   prominent   place   among   left   wing   extra-­‐parliamentary   groups   in  Sweden.   The   Swedish   Security   Service   (SÄPO,   2009)   has   classified   AFA   as   being   a  foundation   for   the   extreme   political   left   in   Sweden.   The   network   is   therefore   seen   as  highly   relevant   for   the   study   of   differences   in   attitudes   towards   the   usage   of   radical  methods  to  reach  political  goals,  disregarding  of  what  one  think  of  SÄPO’s  classification.        Since  AFA  is  a  network,  and  not  an  organization,  there  is  no  centralised  leadership.    This  has   important   implications   for   the   paper,  which   are   important   to   stress.   The   persons  interviewed  are  represents  of  AFA  Väst  (which  is  a  district  covering  the  west  of  Sweden,  including  Gothenburg)  and  can  therefore  only  speak  for  that  specific  district.  However,  the  interview  can  still  be  seen  as  very  important  since  AFA  does  not  have  a  centralised  leadership  and   this   interview  therefore  could  not  be  conducted  with  any  person  more                                                                                                                  ‡  Cited  from  the  web  page  of  Swedish  AFA,  2014-­‐12-­‐15.    

  10  

central  to  the  organisation  nation  wide.  The  two  persons,  who  wish  to  stay  anonymous,  were   central   to   AFA   Väst,   and   therefore   seen   as   relevant   informants.   It   should   be  mentioned   that   trials   has   been  made   to   interview  members   from   other   districts,   but  they   have   either   not   responded   or   said   that   they   do   not   do   interviews   (which   is  interesting  in  it  self  and  is  worth  a  discussion).      Förbundet  Allt  Åt  Alla,  Uppsala  (The  Association  Everything  for  Everyone,  Uppsala)  Förbundet  Allt  Åt  Alla  (AÅA)  is  a  relatively  new  member  of  the  more  radical  autonomous  Swedish  left  that  gives  priority  to  class  issues.  “Our  goal  is  a  society  organized  after  the  principle:   from  each  according   to   their  ability,   to  each  according   to   their  need**”.  With  branches  in  six  Swedish  cities,  it  has  grown  to  be  one  of  the  larger  extra-­‐parliamentary  organisations   that   call   themselves   revolutionary.   This   is   what   makes   it   qualify   as   an  example  of  an  autonomous  left  group  for  this  study.      Just  as  with  AFA,  this  organisation  does  not  have  a  centralised  leadership  but  only  local  groups   that   are   self-­‐determent.   Again,   it   is   therefore   crucial   to   emphasise   that   the  person   interviewed   cannot   speak   for   the   organisation   as   a   whole,   but   only   for   the  branch  of  Uppsala.  However,  the  group  comes  from  the  same  ideology  and  therefore  it  can  be  argued  that  their  attitudes  toward  radical  methods  of  political  action  should  be  largely  the  same.  Moreover,  the  situation  is  the  same  as  with  Antifascistisk  Aktion:  the  organisation  does  not  seem  to  have  a  proper  centralised  leadership,  and  therefore  this  informant   is   the   most   centralised   person   that   can   be   interviewed.     Also   in   this   case,  many  districts  were  contacted,  but  only  Uppsala  would  agree  to  an  interview.      Svenska  Motståndsrörelsen  (The  Swedish  Resistance  Movement)  Svenska   Motsåndsrörelsen   (SMR)   is   an   important   and   vital   part   of   the   national  socialistic  movement  in  Sweden.  Therefore,  they  are  also  commonly  seen  as  a  significant  branch   of   the   extreme   right,   which   is   the   reason   as   to  why   they   are   included   in   this  study.   The   organisation   is   classified   as   one   of   the   best-­‐organized   and   most   violent  groups   among   the   extra-­‐parliamentary   extreme   right   (SÄPO   2009).   However,   as   this  paper   is   being  written   SMR   is   also   forming   a   political   party,  which  will  make   them   a  parliamentarian   group.   This   fact  was   consciously   overlooked   for   two   reasons:   Firstly,  the  organisation  has  not  yet  registered  the  party  so  it  does  not  yet  exist.  Practically,  the  organisation  is  very  much  extra-­‐parliamentary  and  will  continue  to  be  so  for  a  long  time.  Secondly,  during  the  interview  with  the  spokes  person  of  the  organisation  Pär  Öberg,  he  stressed   that   the   future   party  will   only   have   a  minor   significance   and   that   the   group  intends   to   continue   to   first   and   foremost   work   outside   of   parliament.   Finally,   the  informant  Pär  Öberg  can  be  said  to  be  very  central  to  the  organisation  in  his  position  as  being  spokes  person.      Nordisk  Ungdom  (Nordic  Youth)    Nordisk  Ungdom  (NU)   is  an  organisation  with   its  basic  principles  strongly   founded  on  etno-­‐nationalism  and  conservatism.  Their  slogan  is  “The  dream  of  Scandinavia”  and  they                                                                                                                    

  11  

among  the  first  things  that  appears  on  their  web  page  is  a  text  about  how  whether  one  is  Scandinavian   or   not   does   not   have   to   do   with   citizenship   but   from   the   identity   which  springs   from   a   common   past   (meaning   Swedish,   Norwegian   and   Danish).   They   are  defined  as  being  part  of   the  extreme  right  hand  side  of   the  political  spectrum,  and  are  therefore  relevant  for  this  essay.  The  informant  interviewed  is  Patrik  Forsén,  who  is  the  spokes  person  of  Nordisk  Ungdom  and  therefore  very  central  to  the  organisation.      These   are   the   organisations   figuring   in   this   paper.   However,   there   are   organisations  that,  because  of  the  central  role  they  play  in  landscape  of  Swedish  extra-­‐parliamentarian  groups,  should  have  been  appearing  in  this  essay  but  do  not.  The  most  important  one  is  indisputably   Revolutionära   fronten   (the   Revolutionary   front),   which   regrettably  dismissed  the  request  of  an  interview,  declaring  their  policy  is  to  not  take  part  in  similar  projects.  The  importance  of  the  organization,  nevertheless,  cannot  be  undervalued,  and  therefore  it  is  necessary  to  underline  that  this  study  can  never  be  complete  without  their  participation.      The  third  stage  of  the  process  of  selecting  interview  subjects  was  to  choose  individuals  as   central   to   the   organization   as   possible.     Therefore,   board   members   and   leading  figures  were  targeted  in  the  groups  that  had  a  more  centralized  structure.  For  Nordisk  Ungdom   and   Svenska   Motståndsrörelsen   (Patrik   Forsén   and   Pär   Öberg)   the  spokespersons  were  interviewed.  These  two  can  both  be  said  to  have  very  central  roles  in   their   respective  organisations  and   therefore   to  have  given   reliable  accounts  of  how  the   organizations   intend   to   act.   Regarding  Antifascistisk  Aktion   and  Förbundet  Allt  Åt  Alla   it   is  slightly  more  complicated.  When  contacting   the   two  organisations,   they  were  both  very  eager  to  emphasise  the  flatness  of   the  organisation  and  that  they  could  only  speak   for   their   specific  district.  Therefore,   the  result  of   the   interviews  conducted  with  them  cannot  be  said  to  have  as  much  validity  as   for   the  ones  previously  discussed.  On  the   other   hand,   it   could   be   argued   that,   because   of   the   common   value-­‐base   of   the  different  districts,   the   interview  result  would  be   in  all-­‐important  aspects   the  same.  An  argument  for  their  relevance  is  also  the  lack  of  centralised  leadership:  since  there  is  no  such   thing,   it   is   not   possible   to   find   a   better   account   of   the   organisations   political  methods.  The  only  way  to  make  the  relevance  of   the  result  better  would  have  been  to  interview  more  people.  As  already  mentioned,  this  was  impossible  due  to  unwillingness  of  cooperation.      The  interviews  The  interviews  were  performed  either  over  telephone  or  through  a  real-­‐life  meeting  and  generally   lasted  for  45-­‐60  minutes.  Whether  they  were  conducted  by  telephone  or  not  was  decided  by   the   informant  and  what  he  or  she   felt   the  most  comfortable  with.  The  language   of   the   interviews   was   Swedish.   The   interviewer   used   a   guide   containing  questions  prepared  in  advance,  but  added  or  detracted  questions  when  necessary.  The  interviews  were  recorded  and  later  transcribed.  To  record  the  interview  conducted  over  telephone,   the   app  Tape  A  Call  was   used.   To   record   the   interview   conducted   through  meeting  the  informant,  a  Dictaphone  was  used.    The  ambition  of  the  interviews  was  to  

  12  

make   the   informants   speak   as   naturally   as   possible   about   the   subject   at   issue,   and  therefore  the  interviewer  aimed  at  seeming  as  neutral  and  nice  as  possible,  disregarding  her   own   views   on   the   matters   discussed.   Another   aim   was   to   gain   a   better  understanding   of   the   organisation   at   large.   That   is,   questions   that   are   seemingly  irrelevant  to  the  research  question  appear  in  the  interview  guide.      The  analytical  process  Subsequently,  textual  analysis  was  used  to  interpret  the  responses  to  the  questions.  The  question   of   investigation   was   whether   a   difference   between   activism,   radicalism   and  terrorism  could  be  distinguished.  To  answer  this,  the  material  was  first  categorised  into  groups.  For  each  group  the  whole  interview  was  read  in  detail  to  find  and  select  quotes  that   said   something   about   the  particular   category.   The   categories  where   as   following:  the   self   image   of   the   group,   the   groups   political   methods,   the   groups   justification   of  illegal  means  to  reach  political  goals,  the  understanding  of  violence  as  a  political  method,  the  usage  and   justification  of  violence  as  a  political  method,  quotes   that   indicates   that  the  group  should  be  categorised  as  an  example  of  activism,  quotes  that  indicates  that  the  group  should  be  categorised  as  an  example  of  radicalism,  quotes   that   indicate   that   the  group  should  be  categorised  as  an  example  of  terrorism.  The  same  quotes  or  parts  of  the  same  quotes  could  sometimes  appear  under  different  categories.  Finally,   the  quotes  of  the   different   categories   were   compared   against   each   other   and   the   theoretical  framework  presented  earlier  in  the  paper.      Validity  and  Reliability  Lastly,  the  validity  and  the  reliability  of  this  study  need  to  be  discussed.  The  theoretical  definitions  of  the  different  sub  categories  to  political  participation  are  operationalized  as  following:  quotes  and  statements  that  match  the  definitions  of  activism,  radicalism  and  terrorism  are  collected   from  each   interview,   to  decide  whether  an  extra-­‐parliamentary  group  belongs  to  any  of  these  categories.  This  operationalization  shows  what  the  groups  themselves  respond  to  questions  that  are  made  specifically   for   the  cause  of   this  study.  On   the   one  hand,   this   gives   the   informants   the   possibility   to   adapt   their   answers   and  make   their  organisations  appear   in   a  better   light  or   to   seem  different   from  what   they  really   are.  This   can  be  a  problematic  validity  wise:   is   the  phenomena  measured   really  the  actual  political  methods  used  or  just  the  image  the  organisations  want  to  project?  On  the  other  hand,  there  will  always  be  the  problem  of  who  the  delivering  medium  is:  if  the  alternative   operationalization  of   using  media  material   to   investigate   this   thesis  would  have  been  used,  the  image  projected  would  still  have  been  biased,  only  in  another  way.  Therefore   the  validity  of   this  study  must  be  said   to  be  satisfactory:   the   informants  are  first   hand   sources,   near   in   time   and   in   space.   Moreover,   in   an   interview   situation,  clarifying   questions   can   be   asked   that   gives   a   more   nuanced   image   for   the   analysis.  Finally,   the   analyse   of   an   interview   permits   better   options   to   interpret,   since   the  interviewer   remembers   the   situation   and   how   the   informant   reacted   to   certain  questions.  This  can  also  be  an  important  source  of  analysis.      

  13  

The  issue  of  reliability  is  always  problematic  when  textual  analyse  is  used,  because  there  is  an  inevitable  influence  of  the  researcher  on  the  result.  The  interpretation  of  the  result  is   entirely   a   product   of   the   conductor   of   the   study   and   influenced   by   the   subjective  perception  he  or  she  has.  Apart  from  personal  beliefs,  it  is  likely  that  the  researcher  has  been  impinged  by  the  opinions  fluxes  of  present  day  society.  Consequently,  it  is  possible  that  another  researcher  would  arrive  at  a  different  result  than  the  reached  in  this  paper,  and   therefore   the   reliability  of   the  method  used   (i.e.   interviews)  might  not  be  perfect.  However,  the  sole  intention  of  the  interpreter  is  to  be  as  objective  as  is  achievable.        Analysis  of  four  accounts  of  political  participation  This   is   the   second   main   section   of   this   paper.   The   purpose   here   is   to   analyse   the  interviews   in   order   to   display   examples   of   tendencies   that   does   not   fit   neither   the  category  of  activism  nor  terrorism  properly.  Instead,  these  tendencies  are  stressed  to  be  suited  for  its  own  category,  namely  that  of  radicalism.  To  clarify,  the  five  interviews  will  be  summarized  and  categorized  as  either  examples  of  activism,  radicalism  or  terrorism.  More   precisely,   for   each   group   an   analysis   of   the   group’s   self-­‐image   will   be   made,  followed  by  an  account  of  the  group’s  modes  of  procedure  in  strict  terms  (i.e.,  whiteout  classifying  it  as  being  activism,  radicalism  or  terrorism).  Thereafter,  examples  of  quotes  that  points  towards  either  of  the  categories  of  political  participation  will  be  presented.  In   the   end  of   this   section   there  will   be   a   summarizing  discussion   about  which   groups  that  fit  in  to  the  sub  category  of  radicalism,  and  why  this  proves  that  radicalism  should  be  a  group  of  its  own,  separated  from  activism  and  terrorism.    Antifascistisk  Aktion  Väst  Antifascistisk  aktion  (AFA)  Väst  is  an  extra-­‐parliamentary  group  on  the  left-­‐hand  side  of  the  political  spectrum.  They  call  themselves  a  socialistic  network  and  a  protector  of  the  socialistic  movement  against  fascism.  They  stress  that  they  do  not  see  anti-­‐fascism  as  an  ideology   but   only   as   a  means:   “Our   task   is   to  make   certain   that   no   groups  within   the  labour  movement  or  the  socialistic  movement  feel  threatened  by  fascistic  groups  during  their   activities”.   Fascistic   groups   are   seen   as   a   direct   threat   to   socialism   and  communism,   and   therefore   needs   to   disappear   for   socialism   to   flourish.   According   to  AFA,  they  are  the  labour  movements  response  to  this  threat.  When  asked  what  they  see  as  the  main  difference  between  themselves  and  other  extra-­‐parliamentary  groups,  they  respond   that  other  groups   tend   to  work   for   their  own  agendas  and  values,  while  AFA  always   have   to   reciprocate   to   the   work   of   some   group   else.   “We   do   not   have   the  possibility   (to   choose   our   own   ways   of   working),   we   always   have   to   adapt   to   our  opponent.  After  all,  our  group  is  a  reaction  to  them  and  what  they  do”.  The  group  sees  themselves   as   having   a   more   absolute   position   towards   their   adversary   relatively   to  other   groups   with   a   socialistic   agenda.   They   give   the   example   of   another   socialistic  group,  fighting  for  free  public  transportation,  and  say  “they  might  be  happy  if  the  cost  of  public  transport   is   lowered”.  What  the   informants  mean  is  that  this  group  is  willing  to  make   a   compromise   even   if   their   final   goal   is   to   make   it   cost   nothing.   For   AFA   it   is  different  because   their  goal   is  absolute;   the   fascist  groups  must  go.  They  neither  want  nor  have  the  possibility  of  compromising  with  their  enemy.  

  14  

 “Direct  actions”  are   the   two  words   that  best  summarize   the  methods  of  AFA  Väst.  The  group   seem   to   use   their   resources   carefully   and   do   constantly   analyse   the   Swedish  political   climate   to   see  where   their   efforts   will   have   the   greatest   effect.   For   example,  during   the   last   years   they   “have   had   a   focus   on   Svenskarnas   Parti   (the   party   of   the  Swedes).  And  according  to  our  assessment,  laying  our  focus  on  them  has  been  our  best  possibility   to   affect   the   fascistic  movement   in   a   negative   direction.   To   asses  what   the  constitutes   the  main   threat   against  us   is   a   continuous   contemplation”.  To  give   a  more  detailed  description  of  these  direct  actions,  however,  is  difficult.  It  depends  entirely  on  what  kind  of  resistance  they  face  and  the  threat  this  constitutes.    What  is  characteristic  for  the  actions  of  AFA  Väst  is  that  they  do  use  physical  violence.  The  relation  to  it  seem  to   be   two-­‐sided:   as   a   group   they   seem   to   think   it   is   absolutely   necessary   and   do   not  shrink  for  the  usage  of  it,  while  as  individuals  they  want  to  stress  their  disaffiliation  to  it.      The  reason  for  this  seemingly  contradictive  approach  to  violence  lies  within  their  view  of  the  state.  In  their  meaning,  the  state  has  no  interest  in  protecting  AFA,  or  any  of  the  socialistic   organisations,   from   the   constant   threat   that   fascist   groups   constitutes:  Therefore,   they  have   to  defend   themselves:   “…and   they   (the  state)  have  no   interest   in  protecting  our  organisations  (socialist  organisations)  and  that   is  why  our  organisation  started  in  the  first  place…we  emerged  from  the  need  for  protection  of  our  organisations.  These  are  groups  that  explicitly  say  they  want  to  kill  us  more  or  less,  to  lock  us  in  prison  for   our   opinions,   to   harass   our   families”.   They   also   base   this   fright   on   a   historical  context,  meaning  that  in  every  country  in  which  fascism  have  grown  powerful  socialists  have  been  murdered   for   their  beliefs.  They  do  stress,  however,   that   the  groups  would  discontinue  if  the  fascist  threat  were  to  disappear:  “We  would  prefer  if  we  did  not  have  to  do  anything  at  all.  This  is  labour  I  neither  appreciate  nor  like  doing.  The  goal  is  to  shut  down  all  of  our  groups,  so  that  we  can  build  on  something  else  in  other  organisations”.      AFA  Väst  has  numerous  features  that  do  not  fit  neither  the  category  of  activism  nor  that  of  terrorism.  To  recapitulate,  radicalism  is  more  extreme  than  activism  in  the  sense  that  illegal  methods  are  used  and  that  the  offender  is  not  ready  to  face  the  consequences  of  his   or   her   actions.   It   is   also   less   extreme   than   terrorism,   because   it   does   not   target  civilians  without  knowledge  of  why  they  are  being  attacked,  but  rather  groups  seen  as  direct   antipodes   that   are   very   much   aware   of   why   they   are   being   attacked.   There   is  especially  one  trait  in  AFA’s  political  work  that  indicates  the  importance  of  this  category,  namely   that   AFA   direct   their   violence   only   at   specific   fascistic   groups   and   not   the  general   public.   They   are   careful   in   stressing   that   they   only   use   violence   against   the  specific  members  of  such  groups.  To  make  a  comparison;  a  characteristic  of  a  terrorist  organisation  would  be   that   they  do  not  hesitate   to  kill  people  who  have  absolutely  no  connection  to  the  reason  for  the  deed,  to  make  a  point   for  some  kind  of  higher  power.  These  quotes  are  examples  of  the  groups  focus  on  a  specific  group  and  repression  only  against  the  individuals  of  this  group:    

  15  

“We  have  always,  and  are  used  to,  working  against  small  groups  that  constitute  a  physical  threat  against  us,  and  we  can  manage  them  in  a  special  way”.    

 “For  example,  if  a  new  organisation  emerges.  Even  though  we  might  never  have  had  anything  to  do  with   the   individuals   constituting   it,  we   can   still   identify   their   ideology  as  being   fascist.  We  know  their   final   goal   is   to   kill   us   as   individuals,   kill   our   families   and   crush   our   organisation.   And  therefore  we  attack  them  directly”.    The  first  quote  is  quite  straightforward  and  shows  that  they  only  work  against  specific  groups.   The   key   to   the   second  quote   lies   in   the   last   sentence:  and  therefore  we  attack  them  directly.    It  also  proves  that  they  direct  their  violence  only  at  such  groups,  and  not  at  the  general  society.  When  speaking  about  the  recruitment  of  members,  the  informants  gave   examples   of   bad   and   good   applications   and   motives   for   joining   the   group.   The  following  quote  is  from  an  example  of  a  good  application:  “Now  this  thing  has  happened,  and   I   am   scared.   They   are   in   my   neighbourhood   and   I   am   afraid   to   go   out   at   night.  Something   needs   to   be   done”   (quote   from   a   fictive   persons   application   letter).   Then   I  really   know   that   this   person   has   understood   what   it   is   all   about   (the   informants  comment  on  the  letter)”.  This  quote,  again,  shows  us  that  the  violence  will  be  performed  only  on  a  small  scale  and  only  against  this  specific  group.  When  the  informant  approved  of  this  motive  of  application,  he  shows  the  importance  of  a  new  members  understanding  of  that  principle,  and  therefore  this  quote  is  relevant.      To  summarize  the  argument,  neither  the  sub  group  of  activism  nor  that  of  terrorism  is  suitable   ways   of   categorizing   the   political   methods   of   AFA   Väst.     Instead,   these  characteristics  must  be  said  to  support  the  line  for  which  this  paper  argues,  namely  that  of  radicalism  as  an  important  category  of  its  own.  One  definitely  cannot  claim  that  AFA  Väst   is   terrorist.   But   on   the   other   hand,   if   AFA   are   categorized   as   activists,   a   central  feature  of  the  group  is  likely  to  be  lost.  A  group  using  physical  violence  cannot  be  termed  the  same  as  the  every  day  local  political  party  organisation,  because  it  will  decrease  our  understanding  of  the  group.  Therefore  it  is  vital  that  radicalism  is  to  distinguished  as  a  sub  group  of  its  own.      Förbundet  Allt  Åt  Alla,  Uppsala  (The  Association  Everything  for  All,  Uppsala)  Allt   Åt   Alla   Uppsala   is   a   revolutionary   extra-­‐parliamentary   organisation   and   an  important  part  of  the  Swedish  autonomous  left.  First  and  foremost  they  advocate  what  can  be  seen  as  classically  left-­‐wing  political  agenda:  they  are  anti-­‐capitalists  working  for  a  classless  society:  “But  in  essence  one  can  say  our  aim  is  working  class  power,  namely  the   political   power   of   the  working   class   and   in   the   log   run   a   classless   society.   In   that  sense,  we  are  part  of  the  communist  tradition”.  They  are  also  revolutionary,  in  the  sense  that  they  want  to  see  a  new  kind  of  state:  “We  are  and  anti-­‐capitalist  organisation  that  reject  the  present  economic  system  and  in  due  course  also  the  present  political  system”.  When   asked   if   they   can   specify   a   more   exact   political   orientation,   the   answer   is  revolutionary   socialists.   However,   the   informant   underlines   that   Allt   Åt   Alla   is   not   a  traditional   communist   group,   but   rather   a   group  within   the   communist   tradition.   The  reason   for   this   is   that   Allt   Åt   Alla   does   not   have   any   intentions   of   forming   a   political  

  16  

party,  which  otherwise  is  the  typical  communist  way  of  political  participation.  He  does  also   emphasise   that   the   group   is   heterogeneous   and   that   there   certainly   are   people  within   it   that   would   not   identify   themselves   neither   with   the   epithet   communist   nor  revolutionary  socialist.  Allt  Åt  Alla  also  wants   to  be  a  mobilizing  power  against   fascist  and   racist   groups,   whom   they   see   to   have   had   an   “anti-­‐communist   and   antisocialist  agenda  as   their  main  agenda”.  In  contrast   to  other  groups   in   the  autonomous   left,   like  “Revolutionära   Fronten”   and   “Anti-­‐Fascistisk   Aktion”,   Allt   Åt   Alla  wants   to   be   able   to  work  openly.  This  is  very  important  to  them,  and  also  one  of  the  reasons  that  the  group  was  founded  in  2008:  “One  can  say  that  Allt  Åt  Alla  was  created  as  a  reaction  to  the  way  the  socialistic  movements  were  working  during   the   first  decade  of   the  21th  century….  The  other   reason  was   the  network   that   started   to  organize   secretly  and  underground.  They  participated  in  violent  situations  and  therefore  did  not  dare  to  work  openly”.  The  founders   of  Allt   Åt   Alla   believed   that   the   socialistic  movement   could   gain   from  work  conducted  with   continuity   and  without   secrecy.   However,   the   informant   stresses   that  the   choice   to  work   openly   is   not   a   condemnation   of   those  who   does   not,   but  merely  another  form  of  organisation.      As  mentioned  above,  Allt  Åt  Alla’s  final  purpose  is  a  revolution  towards  a  new  state  and  a   classless   society.  They  want   to   achieve   this   through   “being  a  mobilizing   force   in   the  political  conflict’s  that  emerges  from  our  society”.    More  specifically,  they  use  methods  that  are  often  provocative   for   the  groups  the  actions   intend  to  criticise.  The   informant  gives  some  examples  of  such  actions.  Allt  Åt  Alla  Stockholm  sent  fake  letters  to  property  owners  in  one  of  the  richer  neighbourhoods  in  Stockholm,  telling  them  that  the  made  up  “Committee   of   expropriation”  were   planning   on   building   tenancy   rights   and   that   they  were  forced  to  move  out  before  a  certain  date.  Another  action  seen  as  very  provocative  was  when   Allt   Åt   Alla   arranged   a   so   called   “over   class   safari”,   were   they   chartered   a  coach  to  go  on  a  “safari”  to  one  of  the  more  wealthy  areas  in  Stockholm.  More  generally,  they  say  “their  most  common  methods  are  attention  seeking  ones.  Examples  of  such  are  billpostings,  ad-­‐bustings,  campaigns  and  symbolic  actions”.    They  also  want  to  provide  a  platform  for  political  discussion  and  to  build  a  sense  of  a  socialistic  community:  “I  would  say  our  most  common  way  of  proceeding  is  to  find  different  ways  to  create  communities,  to  organise  communities  around  different  kinds  of  physical  places”.  He  then  proceeds  in  saying  that  such  places  can  be  working  places,  neighbourhoods  and  tenant  associations.  “An  example  can  be,   if  we  are   talking  about  Allt  Åt  Alla  on  a  national   level,   is   the   fika-­‐allmänning  (coffee  and  cake  for  everyone).  The  ones  who  want  to  bring  coffee  and  cakes,  and   it   is   free   for   everyone  who  wants   to   participate.   In   a   neighbourhood.   It   happens  ones  a  week  and  everyone  can  come  there  to  have  coffee  and  it  is  a  place  to  be,  were  you  can  meet  other  people  in  your  neighbourhood.  We  are  creating  a  meeting  point,  a  place  were  one  can  talk  about  politics  and  tenant  matters”.      Allt   Åt   Alla   does   not   seem   to   cultivate   neither   illegal   methods   in   general   nor   violent  behaviour  in  particular.  Their  methods,  including  the  reactive  ones,  seem  to  stay  within  the  frames  of  legality.  However,  they  do  not  condemn  neither  illegality  nor  violence:  “If  the   final  goal   is  revolution   it   is  obvious  that   the  borders  of   illegality  will  be  crossed  at  

  17  

some   point”.   The   informant   seems   to  mean   that   the   justification   of   illegality   depends  greatly  on  circumstances  and  that  if  circumstances  change,  illegality  might  be  necessary  and   justified.  At  present,   however,   the   socialistic  movement  would   loose  more   than   it  gains   from  practicing   illegality.  When  asking  specifically  about  violence,   the   informant  presents  a  similar  argumentation.  Allt  Åt  Alla  does  not  use  violence  at  present  day,  but  “if   our   movement   would   be   successful   and   properly   challenge   the   power   we   would  become  a  target  for  violence.  Since  this  is  a  situation  we  seek,  we  have  to  realise  that  it  might   be   necessary   to   defend   ourselves   with   violence   if   we   are   attacked   with   it…  therefore  I  believe  that  we  have  to  be  mentally  prepared  that  violence  might  become  a  political  reality”.  Repeated  times,  the  informant  also  say  that  he  would  never  condemn  the  ones  who  use  violence  to  defend  themselves  for  a  political  purpose,  which  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Allt  Åt  Alla  does  not  use  physical  violence  as  a  political  method,  but  that  they  do  not  mind  others  doing  it  as  an  act  of  defence.      Allt  Åt  Alla  are  categorised  as  being  activists  rather  than  radicals  or  terrorists.  There  are  several   reasons   for   this.  Most   importantly,   they  do  not  practice   illegality   in  any  major  sense   and   the   illegality   they   do   perform   can   indubitably   be   categorised   as   the   lighter  form  of   civilian  disobedience,   namely  when   the  persecutor   is   open  with   the  deed   and  does  not  try  to  hide  in  order  to  avoid  conviction.  Such  an  example  is  their  support  of  and  collaboration   with   the   organisation   “Planka.nu’s”   initiative   to   advocate   free   public  transport:   they   encourage   their   members   to   not   pay   when   using   public   transport   to  state   an   example.   This   is   an   act   of   activism:   they   use   the   public   transport   illegally,  knowing  they  might  get  caught  and  ready  to  face  the  consequences  openly  as  individuals  if  they  do  get  caught.  Another  reason  for  why  they  must  be  seen  as  activists  rather  than  anything   else   is   the   absolute   absence   of   usage   of   violence   at   present   day.  Many  other  extra-­‐parliamentary  groups  say  they  use  violence  in  self-­‐defence,  but  Allt  Åt  Alla  seems  deprecate  violence  all  together.  The  motive  for  this  lies  in  the  form  of  organisation:  they  want   to   be   able   to   continue   to   conduct   their   work   publicly   and   be   open   with   their  identities.      Nordisk  Ungdom  (Nordic  Youth)  Nordisk  Ungdom  is  a  right-­‐wing  extra-­‐parliamentary  organisation  with,  what  they  call,  nationalistic  views.  Even  though  their  name  tells  us  differently,  it  is  not  an  organisation  only  directed  towards  youths.  Everyone  between  15-­‐35  is  welcome  to  become  members.  The  informant  say  that  people  older  than  35  are  “absolutely  irrelevant,  because  they  are  already   “lost”,  meaning   that   their   ideas   cannot   be   changed   in   the   direction   Nordisk  Ungdom   strives   for.   Ideas   are   important   to   the   organisation,   and   they   see   themselves  primarily   as   a   think   tank   and   a   lobby   organisation.   They   want   to   influence   other  “national”  organisations  in  their  direction  of  opinions,  and  have  been  focusing  mainly  on  the  Swedish  Democrats:  “But  right  now  our  focus  is  to  affect,  I  do  not  know  if  I  should  call   it   that,   the   “movement   friendly   to   Sweden”   in   the   right   direction…   and   first   and  foremost  we  have  been   focusing  on  SD  (Sverigedemokraterna)”.  Nordisk  Ungdom  sees  themselves   as   more   radical   than   Sverigedemokraterna   (the   Swedish   democrats).   The  informant   makes   a   comparison   between   NU   and   the   youth   association   of  

  18  

Sverigedemokraterna   (SDU),   saying   that   SDU   attracts   careerists   while   NU   attracts  idealists.   This   tells   us   that   the   organisation   see   themselves   as   being  more   radical   and  idealistic  than  other  “nationalistic  organisations”.  When  asked  about  what  epithet  they  would  ascribe  themselves,  the  informant  answers  “radical  right”  because  of  the  radical  change   of   society   they   want   to   see.   Other   denominations   mentioned   are   right   wing,  conservative  and  nationalistic.  Morals   is  a  concept  that  also  seems  to  be   important   for  the  organisation,  and  they  give  the  impression  that  they  consider  themselves  as  having  the   truth  of  what   is  moral  and   immoral.  Many  of   the  examples  given  by   the   informant  support   this   and   an   interesting   aspect   is   that   they   exclude   members   on   the   base   of  “immoralities”  such  as  infidelity  and  promiscuous  behaviour.  Abortion  is  also  mentioned  explicitly   as   being   immoral.   In   other   words   they   are   also,   and   wants   to   be,   socially  conservative.      “A  classical  NU-­‐action  is  something  that  is  colourful,  challenging  and  provocative.  It  can  balance  on  the  border  to  the  illegal,  but  preferably  it  stays  within  the  frame  of  legality”.  This   is   what   the   informant   answered   when   asked   to   describe   a   common   method   of  Nordisk   Ungdom.   The   organisation   lifts   forward   their   ideas   through   direct   actions,  which   they   want   to   be   a   mixture   between   having   a   symbolic   meaning   and   being   a  practical   action.   An   example   accentuated   in   this   context  was   a  when   the   organisation  pretended  to  interview  the  woman  that  threw  a  cake  in  the  face  of  Jimmie  Åkesson  (the  leader  of  the  Swedish  Democrats)  and  threw  a  cake  in  her  face  instead.  Other  examples  given  of  typical  NU  actions  is  one  conducted  in  protest  of  a,  in  their  eyes,  US  propaganda  film,  when  they  dressed  up  as  dead  Palestinians  and  Obama  with  a  gun,  explicitly  saying  that  the  US  are  murderers.  Another  time  they  wanted  to  protest  against  pole  dancing  for  children   and   did   this   through   painting   and   writing   messages   on   the   walls   of   the  company  who  offered  these  classes.      A  common  factor  for  the  actions  seems  to  be  that  the  reason  for  them  seems  to  be  not  only  political,  but  also  moral.  The  organisation  does  not  deny  that  illegal  methods  might  be   necessary   and   justified   if   there   is   a   good   moral   reason   behind   them.   In   the   pole  dancing  case  just  mentioned,  the  immorality  of  sexualising  children,  as  they  saw  it,  was  a  good   enough   moral   reason   to   perform   an   illegal   act.   Moreover,   they   say   it   is   never  Nordisk  Ungdom’s  intention  “to  threaten  anyone  or  to  make  them  feel  uncomfortable.  If  they  choose  to  misinterpret  us,   it   is   their  problem”.  It  seems  as   if   the   interpretation  of  what  is  immoral  and/or  threating  lies  in  the  hands  of  the  organisation,  and  therefore  the  interview   has   been   interpreted   as   being   positive   to   illegal   acts,   that   is,   that   the  organisation  do  not   think  small   scale   illegality   to  be  wrong.  This  quote  about   the  pole  dancing  case  supports   this:   “We  considered  ourselves   to  have  a  moral  reason  (for   this  illegal  act).  It  did  not  cost  anything,  it  did  not  harm  anyone,  but  it  is  true  it  is  not  illegal.  This   is   the   reason   as   to   why   we   can   balance   slightly   on   the   border   to   illegality”.   In  contrast,   the  usage  of   physical   violence   is   far   less   accepted.   Similarly   to  Allt  Åt  Alla,   a  positive  statement  to  violence  is  only  made  in  the  context  of  a  distant  future  where  the  political   situation   is   very   different   from   now.   When   asked   about   their   opinion   on  violence  in  the  present  day  situation,  the  informant  responds  as  following:  

  19  

 “But   as   it   is   now,   we   say   absolutely   no   (to   violence).  We   have   a   democratic   system,   and   even  though  it  does  not  work  very  well,  everyone  should  have  the  right  to  express  their  opinions,  think  and   say   what   the   like.   Without   getting   punished   by   the   law   of   Hets   mot   folkgrupp   (the   racial  persecution   law)   or   being   attacked   by   left-­‐wing   activists.   Or   other   types   of   violence,   it   does   not  matter  where  it  comes  from.  We  deprecate  all  types  of  violence  consequently”.      To   categorise   Nordisk   Ungdom   is   rather   more   difficult   than   the   two   previous   extra-­‐parliamentary  groups.  In  the  end,  one  has  to  arrive  to  the  conclusion  that  the  group  are  an  example  of  activism.  The  classification  was  problematic  because  of  the  way  they  view  illegality.   Nordisk   Ungdom   does   not   perform   any   major   criminal   offences.   Examples  given   in   the   interview   was   wall   scrabbling,   egg   and   paint   throwing.   They   mean   to  perform   these   things   as   symbolic   acts   to   state   a   political   example.   However,   the   acts  seem   to   be   punishments   of   political   or  moral   faults   that   Nordisk   Ungdom  means   the  target   is   guilty   of,   rather   than  being   a   protest   against   a   perceived   structural   problem.  And   after   the   acts,   they   do   not   face   the   consequences   of   what   they   have   done  individually  but  only  as  an  organisation.  This  is  problematic  because  it  makes  it  difficult  to  classify  this   illegal  behaviour  as  civilian  disobedience,  since  the  definition  of  civilian  disobedience  is  the  readiness  to  face  the  consequences  of  ones  acts  individually.  And  if  it  is   not   civilian   disobedience   but   just   illegal   acts,   radicalism   should   be   the   proper  categorisation.  At   the  same  time,   the  group’s   fierce  resistance   towards  violence  makes  this   classification   unsuitable.   Therefore   the   conclusion  must   be   that   Nordisk   Ungdom  should  be  viewed  as  more  extreme  activists.      Svenska  Motståndsrörelsen  (the  Swedish  Movement  of  Resistance)    Svenska   Motståndsrörelsen   (SMR)   is   a   national   socialistic   extra-­‐parliamentary  organisation  with  a  revolutionary  agenda.  They  see  themselves  as  enlightened  despots  whose   purpose   is   “to   awaken   the   slumbering   population   of   Sweden  with   information  about  what  the  world  really  looks  like”.  In  other  words,  their  focus  lies  strongly  on  the  dissemination  of   information  and  this  is  what  they  see  as  their  main  task.  When  asked  about   what   political   denomination   they   would   give   themselves,   the   response   is   the  following:  “We  denominate  ourselves  as  being  national  socialists,  which  is  what  people  in  every  day  speech  call  Nazis.  But  we  consider  “Nazis”  to  be  a  bad  conception  to  use  for  national   socialists”.   The   reason   for   this   is   that   the   “Nazi-­‐concept”   has   come   to   be  strongly   related   to   the  holocaust.  The   informant   then  explains   that   they  deny   that   the  holocaust   ever   took   place,   and   that   the   organisation   believes   it   is   merely   a   Zionistic  construction   to   gain   power.   They   do   not   want   to   be   called   Nazis,   because   the   world  relates  the  denomination  to  genocide,  which  they  believe  never  took  place.  An  important  part  of  the  groups  self  image  seems  to  be  that  they  are  the  only  ones  who  dare  speak  the  truth  and  who  are  not  hypocrites.    They  believe  that  caring  more  for  the  people  of  your  country  than  for  the  people  on  another  continent   lies   instinctively   in  all  human  beings  and  therefore  they  mean  that  everyone  who  does  not  admit  that  this  is  how  they  really  feel   are   hypocrites:   “Maybe   one   thinks   it   to   be   horrible   when   a   busload   of   Swedish  children   die   in   an   accident,   but   not   as   horrible   when   the   same   thing   happens   in  Bangladesh  because  it  feels  so  foreign.  We  all  have  this  instinctively,  but  we  are  the  only  

  20  

ones  who  affirm  this   instinct:  we  simply  are  not  hypocrites”.  This  perception  also  goes  for  other  “nationalistic”  groups.  Among  other  things,  they  say  that  all  groups  that  does  not   “realise   the  power  concentration  of   the  Zionists”  (which  no  other  group  does)   the  group  had  basically  “sold  their  soul  to  the  devil”.  That  is,  they  are  too  seen  as  hypocrites.  In  summary,  SMR  see  themselves  as  being  in  possession  of  a  truth  that  the  hypocritical  society  does  not  want  to  or  cannot  accept.        According   to   the   informant,   the  group’s  most  common  political  methods  are  ones   that  are  related  to  disseminate  information  about  their  cause  and  to  make  people  visit  their  web  page  and  use  it  as  a  news  media.  “We  distribute  flyers  and  we  go  out  to  give  people  information  about  what  is  happening  in  the  world.  We  pin  up  banderols  and  get  people  to  visit  our  web  page,  on  which  we  give  information  about  what  happens.  Sometimes  we  feel  this  way  of  doing  things  is  too  slow.  But  we  actually  have  quite  a  lot  of  readers  on  our  web  page…”.  They  also  do  classical  demonstrations:  “About  one  year  ago  we  were  in  Stockholm.   Two  members   of   the   Greek   political   party   Golden   Dawn  were   shot   on   an  open   street.   We   thought   the   media   reporting   was   biased   and   we   wanted   to   give  attention  to  the  matter.  So  we  went  to  Stockholm  and  demonstrated”.  They  also  mention  that   they   sometimes   do   more   specific   actions.   An   example   given   was   their   active  participation   on   planning   meetings   immigrant   homes,   where   they   mean   to   be   a  discouraging  force.  The  group  is  also  currently  in  the  process  of  forming  a  political  party,  but  are  eager  to  stress  that  this  will  only  be  a  minor  part  of  the  group  and  that  they  first  and   foremost   wants   to   be   considered   as   an   extra-­‐parliamentary   groups.   The   new  political  party  will  only  be  yet  another  way  for  the  group  to  spread  their  information  in  new  channels.  They  want  to  be  present  in  all  spaces  where  politics  is  discussed.      When   talking  about   illegality,   two   things   stand  out   in   the  discussion.  The   first  notable  point   is   that   the   informant   speaks  about   illegal  methods  only  on  a  more  general   level  and  does   not   give   case-­‐specific   examples.   The   issue   is   approached   in   a   very   offensive  way.  The  subtext  is  that  there  is  no  rule  of  law  in  Sweden,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  illegal   behaviour   either.   Svenska  Motsåndsrörelsen   is   often   called   to   trials,   accused   of  disrespecting  the  racial  persecution  law.  Sometimes  they  are  deemed  guilty,  which  SMR  interpret   as   being   a   violation  of   their   right   to   express   their   opinions   freely.   Since   this  right  is  inscribed  in  the  Swedish  constitutional  law,  they  feel  that  the  court  and  the  judge  have  themselves  broken  the  law:  “…well,  they  are  acting  in  an  illegal  way.  When  they  do  this,  I  see  no  problem  what  so  ever  in  breaking  the  law.  It  is  almost  an  obligation”.  The  second   point   is   that   the   informant   seems   to   instantly   assume   that   he   is   being   asked  about  violence  and  not  other  forms  of   illegality.  After  talking  about  the  problem  of  the  Swedish   law   system,   he   directly   says   the   following:   “And   as   for   the   rest;   we   are  defending  our  people.  If  our  people  are  attacked  aggressively  with  illegal  means,  then  it  is   obvious   that  we   (our  methods)  will   escalate   as  well”.  When   asked   if   the   informant  could  account  for  any  such  occasions,  he  answers  “no”  and  then  continues  to  say  that  the  reason  for  this  is  not  because  it  has  not  happened,  but  because  he  does  not  want  to  or  cannot   talk   about   such   situations.   He   stresses   that   violence   is   only   used   as   an   act   in  defence.  However,  defence  seems  to  be  defined  with  great  width  and  is  not  only  justified  

  21  

in  direct  attacks,  but  also  in  indirect  ones:  “Generally,  sometimes  the  threat  can  feel  so  imminent   that  we   need   to   act   before   it   strikes”.  This   quote   is   interpreted   as  meaning  that  the  concept  of  “defence”  is  ambiguous  and  that  the  definition  of  what  is  defence  can  be  stretched  further  than  direct  attacks  of  physical  violence.      According   to   the   theoretical   framework   presented   in   this   paper,   Svenska  Motståndsrörelsen  must  be  seen  as  an  example  of  radicalism.  Two  things  point  towards  this   conclusion.   First   of   all,   it   is   apparent   that   SMR   does   not   deprecate   the   usage   of  violence,  even  though  they  seem  to  be  very  restrictive  with  it.  The  informants  only  talks  about   “defence”,   but   does   not   properly   define   what   “defence”   means.   As   already  mentioned,   when   asked   if   he   can   tell   about   any   situations   where   SMR   had   to   act   in  defence  he  answers:   “No.  And  by  saying   that   I  do  not  mean  that  people  have  not  been  attacked,  but  only  that  I  do  not  want  to  say  anything  about  it”.  As  we  already  know,  he  later   indicates   that   it   can   mean  more   than   just   direct   attacks   when   he   mentions   the  concept   “indirect   attacks”   and   that   such   attacks   can   be   justified   when   “the   threat   is  imminent   and   one  wants   to   act   first”.   Examples   of   such   situations   are   not   given,   and  therefore   it   is   hard   not   to   interpret   such   situations   as   being   ambiguous:   what   is   and  what   is   not   self-­‐defence   can   be   adapted   to   every   situation.   Moreover,   the   lack   of  examples  and  open  accounts  of  where  and  how  violence  is  used  makes  the  classification  problematic:  since  the  targets  of  “self-­‐defence”  are  not  properly  defined,  SMR  might  as  well  also  match   the  category  of   terrorism.   If   the   targets  of   the  self-­‐defence  are  specific  small  group  that  are  aware  of  why  they  are  being  attacked  and  are  likely  to  reciprocate  to   the   attack,   SMR  matches   the   category   of   radicalism.   However,   if   the   targets   of   the  defence-­‐violence   are   not   members   of   a   specific   group,   aware   of   why   they   are   being  attacked  or  likely  to  reciprocate,  SMR  must  be  classified  as  being  part  of  the  sub-­‐group  of   terrorism.   Unfortunately,   this   difference   cannot   be   decided   due   to   the   lack   of  information   given   in   the   interview.   In   the   wake   of   all   this,   SMR   must   therefore   be  classified  as  being  part  of  the  sub  group  of  radicalism.      Secondly,  their  attitude  towards  other  forms  of  illegality  also  corresponds  better  to  the  category  of  radicalism  than  it  does  to  activism.  Illegal  forms  others  than  violence  is  only  mentioned   when   speaking   about   the   trials   SMR   frequently   have   to   attend.   At   a   first  glance,  this  might  seem  as  a  sign  of  activism  rather  than  radicalism,  because  they  do  face  the   consequences   of   their   illegal   actions   individually   in   court.   However,   there   is   a  difference   between   this   behaviour   and   of   civilian   disobedience.   An   example   can   be  illustrative   in   this   case.   An   act   of   civilian   disobedience   is   done   openly   with   the  expectation  of  meeting  the  consequences  of  that  same  act.  In  the  case  of  SMR,  the  act  for  which  they  are  trialled  for   is  writing  an  article  where  Hitler   is  mentioned  in  a  positive  sense,  which   is   also   something   they   have   done   openly.   The   difference   lies   in   the  way  they  view  their  acts.  In  the  case  of  a  civilian  disobedience,  they  accept  the  act  as  illegal  and   are   ready   to   face   its   consequences.   SMR,   on   the   other   hand,   does   not   accept   that  writing   about   Hitler   in   this   way   is   illegal   and   are   therefore   not   willing   to   face   the  consequences  of  this.  They  do  go  to  court,  but  for  the  wrong  reasons.  This  is  the  reason  

  22  

as   to  why   it   cannot  be   called  an  act  of   civilian  disobedience,   and  why   this   is   a   second  point  proving  SMR’s  belonging  to  the  sub  category  of  radicalism.      Summary  After  performing   this   analysis  we  can  conclude   that   there  are,   among   the   interviewed  groups,   two   cases   of   activism,   two   cases   of   radicalism   and   none   of   terrorism.   The  apparent  lack  of  terrorist  group  is  not  surprising,  but  it  proves  a  point  important  for  this  paper:   if   the   category   of   radicalism   would   not   be   distinguished   as   its   own,   all   of   the  organisations   interviewed  would  have  been  classified  as  being  part  of   the  subgroup  of  activism.  To  classify  them  all   in  the  same  category  would  make  important  features  and  differences   between   the   groups   go   lost.   The   difference   between   a   less   radical   activist  group   and   a   more   radical   activist   group   might   be   apparent   for   the   researcher   who  conducts   a   classification,   but   for   a   possible   reader   such   differences   might   not   be   as  apparent   and   therefore   this   readers   understanding   of   the   subject   might   diminish  radically.   On   a   more   general   level,   the   difference   in   which   political   methods   extra-­‐parliamentary   groups   choose   to   use   is   important   for   society   to   better   understand   the  political  landscape  and  what  kinds  of  events  that  might  be  expected.      Conclusion  This  paper  has  illuminated  the  important  distinction  between  the  concept  of  radicalism  and  that  of  activism  and  terrorism.  It  has  done  so  through  presenting  empirical  examples  of  groups  that  matches  neither  the  category  of  activism  nor  that  of  terrorism,  but  which  have   characteristics   that   fit   somewhere   in   between   these   to.   This   shows   that   there   is  support   for   the   idea   of   radicalism   as  way   of   classifying   such   groups.   The   existence   of  such  groups  where  proved  through  conducting  analyses  of  interviews  with  four  relevant  extra-­‐parliamentary   groups,   among  which   two   proved   to   be   examples   of   groups   that  matched  the  sub-­‐category  of  radicalism  and  two  which  matched  that  of  activism.  None  of  the  groups  were  found  to  be  an  example  of  terrorism.      To  clarify,  the  important  things  with  this  result  are  as  follows:  a)  Building  on  mainly  the  work   of   Moskalenko   and   McCauley,   this   study   has   further   illuminated   the   great  importance  of  the  distinction  between  activism  and  radicalism.  Its  main  contribution  to  this  distinction  has  been  the  more  nuanced  classification  of  civil  disobedience,  shifting  the   distinction   between   activism   and   radicalism   to   not   only   be   about   legality   versus  illegality  in  a  strict  sense,  but  instead  making  it  a  question  of  whether  the  committer  of  the   civil   disobedience   is   ready   to   face   the   consequences   of   his   or   her   deed.     If   the  distinction  between  the  two  subcategories  would  not  be  made  in  this  way,  almost  every  extra-­‐parliamentary   group   would   be   classified   as   radical,   since   almost   all   of   them   at  some  point  do  something  that   is   illegal.  Consequently,   this  would   lead  to  a  diminished  understanding   of   such   groups,   disregarding   of   whether   their   other   actions   would   be  classified  in  the  category  of  activism  or  that  of  radicalism.  Thus,  the  contribution  of  this  study  offers  a  possibility  to  avoid  such  faults.  b)  Through  the  more  specified  distinction  between  radicalism  and   terrorism  this  study  has  created  a  way   to  distinguish  between  illegal   and   illegal:   Now,   the   great   difference   between   a   minor   illegal   act   such   as  

  23  

destroying  advertisement,  and  mayor  ones  like  killing  civilians,  can  be  distinguished  in  a  way  that  could  not  be  achieved  before.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  important  contribution  of   this   study.   Before,   groups   using   illegal  means,   and   especially   groups   using   political  violence,   seem   to   have   been   in   some   sort   of   shadow   land,   in  which   a  minor   Swedish  socialist  group  could  be  compared  with  a  world  vide  terrorist  network.  This  paper  has  suggested   a   framework   that  will   enable   a  more  nuanced   image  of   illegal   behaviour   in  general  and  political  violence  in  particular.      Albeit  only  four  extra-­‐parliamentary  groups  were  interviewed  for  this  study,  it  is  likely  that   the  manner   in   which   they   operate   are   not   unique.   The   subjects   of   study   chosen  must   be   seen   as   representative   for   the   population   of   such   groups,   and   therefore   it   is  rather   likely   that   this   can   be   said   for   smaller   extra-­‐parliamentary   groups   as   well.  However,  the  aim  of  this  paper  was  not  to  explain  how  many  groups  that  fit  the  category  of  radicalism  there  are  in  Sweden,  but  rather  to  prove  the  thesis  that  of  the  importance  of   the   distinction   between   activism,   radicalism   and   terrorism.   The   fact   that   there   are  groups   that   do   fit   the   category   of   radicalism,   even   if   it   is   only   these   two,   proves   that  there  is  a  value  of  such  a  distinction.  Nevertheless,  it  has  to  be  stressed  that  it  is  possible  that  other  researchers  would  find  problems  with  this  categorisation  that  are  presently  unknown   to   the   author   of   this   paper.     Perhaps,   the   predicaments   surrounding   the  definition   of   terrorism   could   be   such   a   complicating   factor.   Thus,   the   concluding  assessment  of  this  inquiry  is  that  radicalism  as  a  category  is  an  important  contribution  for   the   understanding   of   the  workings   of   political   activist   groups,   but   also   that   it   is   a  base  on  which  further  research  must  be  conducted.                                    

  24  

List of References Brottsförebyggande rådet & Säkerhetspolisen. (2009) Våldsam politisk extremism: Anti-demokratiska grupperingar på höger- och vänsterkanten. Rapport 2009:15. Corning, A. F. & Myers, D. J. (2002) Individual Orientation towards Engagement in Social Action. Political Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 703-729. Essaiasson, J., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H. & Wängerud L. (2012) Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad. Stockholm: Nordstedts Juridik AB. Futrell, R. & Brents, B. G. (2003) Protest as terrorism: The Potential for Violent Anti-Nuclear Activism. American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 46, No. 6. Gunning, J. (2004) Peace with Hamas: the transforming Potential of Political Participation. International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 2. Kyriakos, N.D. (2013) Democracy in Transition: Political Participation in the European Union. New York, London, Dordrecht: Springer Heidelberg Moskalenko, S. & McCauley, C. (2009) Measuring Political Mobilization: the Distinction between Activism and Radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21:2, pp. 239-260. Moskalenko. S. & McCauley, C. (2008) Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20:3, pp. 415-433. Norris, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Agents, Repertoires & Targets of Political Activism. Paper for presentation at panel 14-18 Political activism, Participation and Identification. Muller, E. N. (1982), An Explanatory Model for Differing Types of Participation. European Journal of Political Research, 10: pp. 1–16. Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. & Rath Rakshi. (2008) Making a Virtue out of Evil: A Five-Step Social Identity Model of the Development of Collective Hate. Social and Psychology Compass 2/3. Riley, C. E., Griffin, C. & Morey. Y. (2010) The case for “everyday politics”: Evaluating Neo-tribal theory as a way to understand alternative forms of political participation, using electronic dance music and culture as an example. Sociology, 44(2), pp. 345-363. Salisbury, R. H. (1975) Research on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19, No. 2. pp. 323-341. Teorell, J. Svensson, T. (2007) Att Fråga och att svara. Malmö: Liber. Uhlaner, C. J. (2001) Political Participation in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Behavioural Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Verba, S. & Ni, H. N. (1972) Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row. p. 2.

  25  

Oral References Interview with informant 1: AntiFascistisk Aktion Väst. The two informants wish to be anonymous. The interview was performed face to face the 16 of December 2014. Interview with informant 2: Allt Åt Alla Uppsala. The informant wishes to be anonymous. The interview was performed over telephone the 17 of December 2014. Interview with informant 3:Nordisk Ungdom. The informant was Patrik Forsén, who is the spokes person of the organisation. The interview was performed over telephone the 22 of December 2014. Interview with informant 4: Svenska Motståndsrörelsen. The informant was Pär Öberg, who is the spokes person of the organisation. The interview was performed over telephone the 22 of December 2014. All interviews are available in Swedish for reviews.

  26  

Appendix 1.1 The Interview Guide Theme 1: The goal and purpose of the organisat ion

• How would you describe the purpose and goal of your organisation? • What would you say is the most important task of your organisation? • If you would give your organisation a “political denomination”, what would it be? (i.e.

liberal, socialist etc.). • What would your organisation want to spend more time doing? • What would your organisation want to spend less time doing? • Would you say that there are organisations that have similar opinions as your

organisation? o If so, could you please tell about such organisations and why they are close to

you. • Would you say that there are organisations that have very different opinions from your

organisation? o If so, could you please tell about such organisations and why they are different

from you. Theme 2: Poli t ical methods

• How would you describe the most common methods used by your organisation to reach your political goals?

• How would you describe your methods in comparison to other extra-parliamentary organisations?

• Does your organisation believe there are situations in which illegal methods can be necessary and justified to reach political goals?

o If so, can you tell about such situations and why it is justified/can you tell about why it is not justified.

• Does your organisation believe there are situations in which violence can be necessary and justified to reach political goals?

o If so, can you tell about such situations and why it is justified/can you tell about why it is not justified.

Theme 3: The members of the organisat ion

• How would you describe the members of your organisation? • How would you describe your member’s attitude towards the society at large?

Theme 4: The society

• How does your organisation perceive the response you receive from the rest of society? • How does your organisation view the societal development over time? • If your organisation had the possibility to change one thing right now, what would it be?

Concluding questions Is there anything you would like to add? Do you think I have missed any important issues? Do you have any questions to me?