On Radicalism a Study of Political Methods in the Shadow Land Between Activism and Terrorism

On Radicalism A Study of Political Methods in the Shadow Land between Activism and Terrorism

Sophie Sjöqvist Uppsala University Political Science Bachelorettes thesis 2014 Instructor: Katarina Barrling

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

2 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).

3 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

4 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.

5 Political participation

Political Activism

Actvism Radicalism Terrorism

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

6 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).

7 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 The usage of illegal acts to The use of deadly violence and civilian disobedience to reach political goals. The or violence that seriously reach political goals. For an performer is not willing harms its victims against illegal act to be classified as and does not mean to face unspecific civilians or non- civilian disobedience, they the consequences of the combatants who are not have to be performed illegal acts. These acts aware of why they are openly, without violence include physical violence being attacked and are and with the intention of but are only used against unlikely to reciprocate to facing its consequences specific groups or the attack themselves. individually according to individuals who are aware the laws of the sate it is of why they are being committed in. attacked and are likely to reciprocate individually against the attacker.

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-

8 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.

9 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

10 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

11 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.

12 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.

“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:

14 “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

15 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

16 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

17 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:

“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

19 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

20 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

21 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

22 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.

23 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.

24 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.

25 Appendix

1.1

The Interview Guide Theme 1: The goal and purpose of the organisation • 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: Political 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 organisation • 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?