Beväpnade organisationer i Sverige under mellankrigstiden : En jämförelse mellan kommunistiska och nationalistiska beväpnade organisationer

The research problem of this study has been to compare armed organizations in the Swedish inter war period in a systematic way through the theoretical framework of the monopoly of violence. This has been done in the effort to demonstrate how the Swedish state viewed the level of threat that these organizations proposed based on certain criterias. This is something that hasn’t previously been done and it’s important analyze since it demonstrates how the state works under enormous amounts of stress and what the state deems to be of highest risk during these special times. The purpose of the study has been to answer how the state viewed the different armed organization's threat levels. Was it based on ideological views or was it based on something different? To answer this the study used three different research questions: What did the armed organizations have as their motive? What resources did the organizations have? And how did the state view the threat levels of the different organizations? As already noted the study was conducted within the framework of Max Weber's theory on the monopoly of violence. This theory implies that in order to have a successful state you need to be able to have the exclusive right to use violence within a specific area. Hence the state needs a monopoly of violence and therefore violence becomes a form of politics and the pursuit of power and influence. This theory should help demonstrate both why these organizations choose to take to arms but also how their different aspects affect their levels of threat perceived by the state. This study has been done primarily through a qualitative text analysis with a hermeneutic approach and comparative elements applied to it. This study has found that the organization's ideology seems to be the major aspect that increases the perceived threat levels but that there also are two other aspects that do this. The second is the motive behind why the organization has chosen to become armed. If the motive is to be able to conduct revolution this greatly increases the perceived levels of threat. The third aspect is the amount of resources that these organizations have, the more resources that they are in control of, the greater their potential threat and hence perceived threat levels