Class 9: Politically Violent Activity

Escalation and restraint

Opening notes

Presentation groups

Presentations line-up
Date	Presenters	Method
4 Dec:	Shahadaan, Kristine, Daichi	ethnography
11 Dec:	Bérénice, Zorka, Victoria, Katharina	content analysis
18 Dec:	Shoam, Aidan, Tara, Sebastian	QCA

Antifa

opening discussion
debatable proposition and pressing policy issue
antifa in Germany
Copsey and Merrill (2020): antifa in the U.S.

Revolution Antifa GIFfrom Revolution GIFs

Opening discussion

What should we, students of political violence, know about antifa? (causes? organisation/leadership? radical subcultures and mobilisation? strategies?)

is antifa a ‘gang’ (Pyrooz and Densley 2018)? is antifa a ‘group’ (LaFree 2018)?

gang - ‘durable and street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of its group identity’ (Pyrooz and Densley 2018, 230)
group - ‘some stable organisation that persists over time and has some discernible leadership structure’ (LaFree 2018, 249), see also GTF database: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Debatable proposition: antifa as terrorist org.?

Pyrooz and Densley (2018, 233): “the history of antifa reads like a history of violence”

vs.

Bray (2017, 169): “In truth, violence represents a small though vital sliver of anti-fascist activity.”

Should state security (in Germany, elsewhere) designate antifa as extremist/terrorist

antifa (recently) in Germany

ARD series (in German): https://www.ardaudiothek.de/sendung/die-fascho-jaegerin-der-fall-lina-e-und-seine-folgen/94838298/

28-year-old antifa activist, Lina E., and three accomplices jailed for either membership of or support for a criminal organisation.
- politicised/radicalised by revelations about NSU in 2011
attacks on (assumed) right-wing extremists in Thüringen and Sachsen between 2018 and 2020
judge…
- acknowledged deficiency of criminal punishment of neo-Nazis
- described right-wing extremism as a greater threat to Germany
- but asserted ‘even Nazis have inalienable rights’
- criticized the defense lawyers for describing the trial as “political justice.”

recent journal article: Jones and Schuhmacher (2024)

Copsey and Merrill (2020) - background

Since 2001, right-wing extremists in the U.S. responsible for 110 politically motivated deaths — antifa: 0 (or maximum one, in case of 2020 death of Patriot Prayer supporter)

In putting their “bodies on the line,” militant anti-fascists aspire to defeat fascist organizing, to de-stabilize it, and ultimately de-mobilize it. At its root, anti-fascist militancy is the promise to effect intimidation, humiliation and de-moralization upon fascists. This involves a physical commitment to “no platforming” (p. 124)

lots of informative background information about U.S. antifa in the article

Copsey and Merrill (2020) - research design

semi-structured interviews with activists from RCA in Portland
- conditions of anonymity
- between October 2019 and February 2020.
sample of 3971 tweets (including 2484 retweets) shared by RCA’s Twitter account (@RoseCityAntifa)
- between 13 March 2018 and 28 August 2019
- collected using Tweepy in accordance with Twitter’s regulations
- ‘more militant’ tweets—“648 tweets (including 279 retweets) from within this sample which featured variants of “violence,” “attack,” “assault,” “fight,” and “terror””
  - close reading; quantitatively and qualitatively analysed with critical discourse analysis approach

Copsey and Merrill (2020) - findings/points raised

violent disruption of “fascist” assembly is an axiom of antifa praxis
how far does the label ‘fascist’ extend?
- “legitimacy of anti-fascist action is thus drawn from the illegitimacy of its opponent”
antifa’s “pre-emptive self-defence”
- premised on (a) deadliness of fascist movements of any size and (b) rapid growth potential of fascist movements
there are ‘internal tactical and rhetorical strategies that limit violence’ from antifa — BUT, consistent danger of antifa slipping into glorification of violence

Poll: escalation and restraint

A QR code for the survey.

Take the survey at https://forms.gle/12tV7fgjcAyC8iVG6

ideology secondary to pragmatic issues in choosing to use violence?
most important in allowing restraint?
most likely to provoke escalation?

should states remain open to negotiating with violent groups?
groups more likely to escalate violence if they feel they are losing support?

md`## Poll results (Respondents: ${respondentCount})`

import { liveGoogleSheet } from "@jimjamslam/live-google-sheet";
import { aq, op } from "@uwdata/arquero";

// UPDATE THE LINK FOR A NEW POLL
surveyResults = liveGoogleSheet(
  "https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/" +
    "2PACX-1vSzXDDMtCvL7AeQx2C5Qwg_FEhFHA6dWov5vprYGiQLzzFJARc0RJQniUe-InSkwTCCqTdTv_XXKeEi/" +
    "pub?gid=720467942&single=true&output=csv",
  10000, 1, 6); // adjust the last number to select all relevant columns 

respondentCount = surveyResults.length;

ideology secondary to pragmatic issues?

ideology_secondCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("ideology_second")
  .groupby("ideology_second")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
ideology_second_maxCountRE = Math.max(...ideology_secondCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_ideology_second = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(ideology_secondCounts, {
      x: "ideology_second",
      y: "count",
      fill: "ideology_second",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Strongly disagree",
      "Disagree",
      "Neutral",
      "Agree",
      "Strongly agree"
    ],
    range: [
      "red",
      "pink",
      "lightgrey",
      "lightgreen",
      "forestgreen"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 180,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral", "Agree", "Strongly agree"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(ideology_secondCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, ideology_second_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: ideology_secondCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

more likely to escalate if losing support?

losing_supportCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("losing_support")
  .groupby("losing_support")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
losing_support_maxCountRE = Math.max(...losing_supportCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_losing_support = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(losing_supportCounts, {
      x: "losing_support",
      y: "count",
      fill: "losing_support",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Yes",
      "No",
      "Maybe"
    ],
    range: [
      "forestgreen",
      "darkred",
      "goldenrod"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 80,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -1, padding: 0.2,
    domain: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(losing_supportCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, losing_support_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: losing_supportCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 60,
  style: {
    width: 1600,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 40,
  },
});

Poll results: escalation and restraint

most important factor allowing restraint?

allows_restraintCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("allows_restraint")
  .groupby("allows_restraint")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
allows_restraint_maxCountRE = Math.max(...allows_restraintCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_allows_restraint = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(allows_restraintCounts, {
      x: "allows_restraint",
      y: "count",
      fill: "allows_restraint",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "strategic factors", 
      "resource constraints", 
      "moral convictions", 
      "strong/weak organisation", 
      "other"
    ],
    range: [
      "darkred",
      "goldenrod",
      "cadetblue",
      "forestgreen",
      "gray"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 400,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -40, padding: 0.2,
    domain: ["strategic factors", "resource constraints", "moral convictions", "strong/weak organisation", "other"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(allows_restraintCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, allows_restraint_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: allows_restraintCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 60,
  style: {
    width: 1600,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 40,
  },
});

most likely to provoke escalation?

provoke_escalationCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("provoke_escalation")
  .groupby("provoke_escalation")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
provoke_escalation_maxCountRE = Math.max(...provoke_escalationCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_provoke_escalation = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(provoke_escalationCounts, {
      x: "provoke_escalation",
      y: "count",
      fill: "provoke_escalation",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "state repression",
      "economic inequality",
      "limited political access",
      "other"
    ],
    range: [
      "violet",
      "indigo",
      "goldenrod",
      "orange"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 500,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -60, padding: 0.2,
    domain: ["state repression", "economic inequality", "limited political access", "other"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(provoke_escalationCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, provoke_escalation_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: provoke_escalationCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 60,
  style: {
    width: 1600,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 40,
  },
});

Poll results: negotiation

states should remain open to negotiating with politically violent groups?

negotiatingCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("negotiating")
  .groupby("negotiating")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
negotiating_maxCountRE = Math.max(...negotiatingCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_negotiating = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(negotiatingCounts, {
      x: "negotiating",
      y: "count",
      fill: "negotiating",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Strongly disagree",
      "Disagree",
      "Neutral",
      "Agree",
      "Strongly agree"
    ],
    range: [
      "red",
      "pink",
      "lightgrey",
      "lightgreen",
      "forestgreen"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 180,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral", "Agree", "Strongly agree"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(negotiatingCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, negotiating_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: negotiatingCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

relates to our Week 11-12 classes on state responses

Mechanisms of escalation and restraint

escalation and restraint concepts
catalogue of mechanisms
grouped/summarised mechanisms
- restraint
- escalation

Escalated Quickly Anchorman GIFfrom Escalated Quickly GIFs

escalation and restraint

escalation - a rise in the frequency and/or severity of violent actions
restraint - a deliberate restriction (either reducing or completely stopping) of violent actions

are there significant examples of escalation and/or restraint in cases you know of?

Mechanisms of escalation and restraint

summarising logics of restraint - (Busher et al. 2022; Bjørgo and Ravndal 2020)

(‘ascending the ladder of abstraction,’ Sartori 1970)

A strategic logic (violence is counterproductive in the present circumstances)
A moral logic (certain forms of violence are illegitimate)
A logic of ego maintenance (we are not a violent organization)
A logic of outgroup definition (softening views on putative outgroups)
An organisational logic (the organisation evolves in ways that undermine the logics of violent escalation)

summarising logics of escalation - Busher et al. (2022)

(‘ascending the ladder of abstraction,’ Sartori 1970)

framing logic (intensity of context/threat, revolutionary goals, glorification of violence, violence as viable/necessary, increasing vilification of ‘enemies’)
strategic logic (cope with changing dynamics with opponents and/or state, deal with diminishing opportunity, loss of state control)
organisational logic (declining moderate influence, logistical/practical preparation for violence)
constituency/social logic (endorsement/legitimation from elites and/or public, politics/media focuses on radical flank)

A case of RWE restraint?

Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM) at a glance
Tore Bjørgo on NRM
- findings

Restraint GIFfrom Restraint GIFs

NRM at a glance

Territory of action: Scandinavia [Blomberg and Stier (2019); ]
Organisational structure: hierarchical national branches
Membership: moderate (varies by country, e.g., Stiftelsen Expo 2025)
(main) Objective: white ethno-state
(common) Targets: political and ethnic opponents

Repertoire of actions: low-level violence, connected to terrorism (e.g., Finland, Ravndal 2020; Kotonen 2021; Zeller and Vaughan 2024)

Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM) - Tore Bjørgo

Tore Bjørgo on Why the Nordic Resistance Movement Restrains its Use of Violence (Bjørgo and Ravndal 2020)

Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM) - Tore Bjørgo

When, why does NRM permit use of violence?
- no moral restraints, rather violence perceived as counter-productive (to gaining support and freely propagating views)
- try to expand boundaries of acceptable violence with acts against police and political enemies
Why, how does NRM restrain use of violence?
- to maintain strategic position
- commit members to maintaining nonviolent discipline
How does NRM leadership respond to cases where members overstep and act violently?
- honouring rather than punishing activists who overstep
- BUT ALSO distancing from any affiliation or connection

Any questions, concerns, feedback for this class?

Anonymous feedback here: https://forms.gle/NfF1pCfYMbkAT3WP6

Alternatively, please send me an email: m.zeller@lmu.de

References

Bjørgo, Tore, and Jacob Aasland Ravndal. 2020. “Why the Nordic Resistance Movement Restrains Its Use of Violence.” Perspectives on Terrorism 14 (6): 37–48.

Blomberg, Helena, and Jonas Stier. 2019. “Flashback as a Rhetorical Online Battleground: Debating the (Dis)guise of the Nordic Resistance Movement.” Social Media + Society 5 (1): 205630511882333. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118823336.

Bray, Mark. 2017. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. New York: Melville House Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

Busher, Joel, Gareth Harris, Julia Ebner, Zsofia Hacsek, and Graham Macklin. 2022. “The Dynamics Of Violence Escalation And Inhibition During ’Hot Periods’ Of Anti-Minority And Far-Right Activism: Towards An Assessment Framework.” Coventry: CREST.

Copsey, Nigel, and Samuel Merrill. 2020. “Violence and Restraint Within Antifa: A View from the United States.” Perspectives on Terrorism 14 (6): 122–38.

Jones, Ali, and Nils Schuhmacher. 2024. “Ghostly Militanz: The Loss of Discursive Infrastructures and German Antifascist Radical Counterpublics” 17 (1): 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1285/I20356609V17I1P46.

Kotonen, Tommi. 2021. “Proscribing the Nordic Resistance Movement in Finland: Analyzing the Process and Its Outcome.” Journal for Deradicalization 29 (Winter): 177–204.

LaFree, Gary. 2018. “Is Antifa a Terrorist Group?” Society 55 (3): 248–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0246-x.

Pyrooz, David C., and James A. Densley. 2018. “On Public Protest, Violence, and Street Gangs.” Society 55 (3): 229–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0242-1.

Ravndal, Jacob Aasland. 2020. “The Emergence of Transnational Street Militancy: A Comparative Case Study of the Nordic Resistance Movement and Generation Identity.” Journal for Deradicalization 25: 1–34.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” The American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033–53.

Stiftelsen Expo. 2025. “Svensk Rasideologisk Miljö 2024.” Stokholm: Stiftelsen Expo.

Zeller, Michael C, and Michael Vaughan. 2024. “Proscribing Right-Wing Extremist Organizations in Europe: Variations, Trends, and Prospects.” Terrorism and Political Violence 36 (8): 985–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2023.2240446.