Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article proposes a functional classification of terror, suggesting significant insights into its objectives and types.
Author’s Retrospective Note (2026) This article was originally published in 2015, at a time when mainstream terrorism studies were largely focused on ideological, organizational, and radicalization-centered explanations of terrorist activity. The primary objective of the work was to propose a functional and goal-oriented classification of terror, treating it as a rational form of activity optimized for achieving specific results under resource constraints. Particular attention was paid to the distinction between worldview-based and materially motivated forms of terror, as well as to the concept of commercial terror as a distinct type. At the time of publication, several positions articulated in the article - especially the treatment of economic gain as a primary objective of terror and the functional proximity between state and commercial forms of coercive violence - were considered marginal within dominant academic discourse. Developments in the period 2016-2025, including the normalization of concepts such as geoeconomics, predatory governance, extractive violence, and large-scale infrastructure coercion, have substantially altered the analytical landscape. Many assumptions underlying the original classification have since entered non-marginal academic and policy discussions, albeit under different terminological frameworks. This digital re-publication does not revise the original text. It serves to preserve the work in its original form, to establish a persistent identifier (DOI), and to enable accurate scholarly citation of ideas whose relevance has become more evident over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vladislav Velitsko (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: