1.
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

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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