One of the problems which faces anarchists, or at least, which faces those anarchists who really want to change the authoritarian structure of the society in which we live, is that of being an apparently permanent and minute minority. What exactly do you do in such circumstances? The nineteenth-century anarchists, like the adherents of most other ideologies of the time, thought that "the day" was imminent, and that popular revolutions would usher in the society envisaged by their particular panacea. But in our particular time and place, to anticipate that kind of revolution, however much we may think it desirable, indicates a certain lack of contact with social and political realities. It is an article of faith, like the Second Coming for Christians, or the Withering Away of the State for Marxists rather than a reasonable prediction of what is likely to happen.

On a personal level we all have our own solutions to this difference between "ought" and "is", but what kind of social action do we take? Far and away the most significant answers to this question to emerge in the anarchist movements of Western Europe, have been the Committee of 100 in Britain and the Provo movement in Holland. The significance for anarchists of the Committee of 100 and the lessons of its rise and decline have been discussed at length in ANARCHY, and ever since hearing about the "White Bikes", we had been planning to have an issue of this journal about Provo. But events caught up with us, and the riots in Amsterdam on June 13th to 16th made front page news all over the world while bewildering Provo's sympathisers. The documents, manifestos and impressions gathered together in this issue may not change your attitude to the Provo movement, but will probably make it more explicable. But not altogether so. What about Roel van Duyn's manifesto from the first issue of Provo, with its mixture of anarchism and nihilism and flamboyant nonsense? What about the moral issue raised by Charles Radcliffe?

Provo is obviously a number of quite different trends of discontent, rather than one movement. This is perfectly explicable if you think of the variety of factions in the Committee of 100 or in the ban-the-bomb movement generally, or of the head-shakings and heart-searchings displayed in the columns of FREEDOM and Peace News each year after the Aldermaston March. When Bernhard de Vries talked in London about Provo he remarked that "It appears from the outside to be a jolly crowd of like-minded souls, but to insiders it is a heterogeneous collection with at least four types of people in it." These he categorised as

(1) the artists, the people who organised Happenings. "Art and authority have always been enemies, and because of the attitude of the police, these art-orientated happenings have turned into political happenings."
(2) Beatniks and hipsters of various types, "self-confessed escapists, seeking the means to their own personal world".
(3) Thinkers and philosophers, like the group around the publication Provo.
(4) Activists, the direct action Provos, organising demonstrations, sit-downs, teach-ins, platform. discussions and legal and illegal activities.

Many Provos, de Vries remarked, belong to more than one of these categories. But it is not surprising that a common and consistent "line" has not emerged from them. The situation is much the same as it was in the Committee of 100, in which, just as Irene van de Weetering explained last month about Provo, "When someone doesn't agree with a plan he doesn't take part."

Of the various Provo projects and plans, by far the most interesting and creative so far has been the White Bikes scheme. The first account of this that we read, in FREEDOM, described it as a protest against "the tyranny of car traffic" in Amsterdam, and went on,

"Thirty comrades painted their bicycles white and let it be known that anybody can use them. All they asked was that people should leave the bicycles in the street after they finished their journey for use by the next person. This idea spread very quickly until the bicycle manufacturers, the insurance companies and the police stepped in. The police confiscated the bicycles under the pretext that they were `liable to be stolen'."

But the project was more subtle than this. Barnaby Martin explained in a letter to Peace News:

"The bike scheme is perhaps the most constructive part of the Provos' demonstrations, in which they sought to clarify the results of attempts to improve human relationships through law. Bicycles are far more numerous in Amsterdam than in London, and closer to the hearts of the people. There is a law which says that if you leave your bicycle on the street, you must lock it. The reason is probably quite genuine on the part of the police—'we have to spend a lot of time tracking down people's stolen bicycles and therefore we must force people to protect their machines so as to save our time and public expense.' Very reasonable in its context; but the context is not a loving one,

"The result is that one must assume that others will steal one's bike; it is illegal to trust your fellow men (even though you know that this trust will sometimes be broken), By declaring that their bicycles would be left unlocked, the Provos provocatively asserted their belief in founding social relationships on trust and responsibility, and by painting their machines distinctively, told police and potential thieves alike where their principles lay.

"I don't think the idea of letting these bikes be used generally will come into practice, until perhaps the number of white bicycles is much larger. But clearly if a white bicycle is 'stolen', the Provos will not call on the police to institute a search that may end, not so much with the finding of a bicycle, but with the diminution of human personality in court and, perhaps, in prison."

The White Bikes project is thus a "happening" or improvised drama or a morality play, acted out in the streets of Amsterdam to inculcate a moral lesson, with a beautiful economy of means. But it is also a practical solution to an existing problem. Amsterdam is a beautiful city which is being destroyed by private motor transport—just as London and New York are. As Professor Buchanan says, "It is not a traffic problem we are faced with, as much as a social situation." And the White Bikes plan is exactly the kind of campaign for citizen action "to defend the city against erosion by automobiles" that Robert Swann recommended in his article "Direct Action and the Urban Environment" in ANARCHY 41.

Here, at least, the Provos have something to teach us, The answer to the question of what can a handful of people with revolutionary ideas do in a profoundly non-revolutionary situation, is to find imaginative direct action solutions to immediate, close at hand, problems of daily life. Paul Goodman, whose thinking is in this respect very much like that of the Provos, says that "on problems great and small, I try to think up direct expedients that do not follow the usual procedures". For as David Wieck put it, in ANARCHY 13:

"Proceeding with the belief that in every situation, every individual and group has the possibility of some direct action on some level of generality, we may discover much that has been unrecognised, and the importance of much that has been under-rated. So politicalised is our thinking, so focused to the motions of governmental institutions, that the effects of direct action to modify one's environment are unexplored. The habit of direct action is, perhaps, identical with the habit of being a free man, prepared to live responsibly in a free society. Saying this, one recognises that just this moment, just this issue, is not likely to be the occasion when we all come of age. All true. The question is, when will we begin?"

PROVO is a monthly for anarchists, provos, beatniks, layabouts, tinkers, jailbirds, saints, sorcerers, pacifists, charlatans, philosophers, germ carriers, major domos, happeners, vegetarians, syndicalists, hustlers, incendiaries, marionettes, infant teachers, and of course we must not forget the men of the Internal Security Service.

PROVO opposes capitalism, communism, fascism, bureaucracy, militarism, snobbism, professionalism, dogmatism and authoritarianism.

PROVO feels it is faced with two choices: either desperate resistance or passive withering away. PROVO calls for resistance wherever it is possible. PROVO realises that in the end it will be the loser. However, it will not forfeit the chance to thoroughly provoke this society once more.

PROVO regards anarchism as the inspirational source for resistance. PROVO wants to renew anarchism and spread it among the young.

Why is PROVO called PROVO? Are we negative or positive? What is our norm? What are our ways? PROVO = PROVO because PROVO-behaviour is for us the one and only acceptable way in this society. To climb the social ladder and serve in a job means contributing towards coming nuclear destructions, towards capitalism and militarism. It means collaboration with the authorities and their cunning carrot-on-a-stick: TV. Call us anti-professionalists. We cannot perceive of a "job" as the popular careerists like to call it, which has not as its aim the prolongation of the state of emergency in which we live. The worker manufactures the inferior "desirable objects" from which the capitalist extorts his "increasing returns". The civil servant keeps the records of the victims of bureaucracy. The inventions of technicians and learned men are immediately misused for military ends.

The asocial PROVO is the only ray of hope. Its activity is a spoke in the wheel of "progress" which thunders ahead at such speed that the bomb under the rails is not spotted.

We know that the attitude of the PROVO, a beatnik type we are told in Dr. Buikhuizen's doctoral thesis, is not yet perfect.1 Buikhuizen says: "Provo-ism is not an exponent of resistance against present society; PROVOS do not find their jobs unimportant; PROVO is for them a recreation."

But we propagate provo-ism as resistance against this society. We hope that it will become clear to the PROVO that his "job" degrades him to a cog in the time bomb which this society is. We plead for full-time provocation. We wish to promote a development from the formula "PROVO equals provocative beatnik" to "PROVO equals anarchist, dangerous to the State".

Today the PROVO is not uselessly occupied in provoking the police, rioting on the Dam, throwing crackers in letter boxes.

Tomorrow he has to face the police consciously as an enemy, making an assault on the palace on the Dam, and finally placing bombs in the letter box of the Interior Security Service. Because only the young, idling and provoking masses in the streets can still be set in motion, they are open to resistance, not the so-called working class which is tied hand and foot to the social system. The PROVOS form the last revolutionary class in the Netherlands.

We denounce capitalism, bureaucracy, militarism, and the inevitable political-military collapse of World War III. We acclaim resistance, freedom and creativity. In other words, we repudiate the positive and affirm the negative. Hence we love hatred and hate love. Our one norm is: let everyone in the name of his own existence wage war against the outside world to the very end.

We cannot convince the masses. We hardly want to. How one can put one's trust in this apathetic, dependent, spiritless horde of cockroaches, beetles and ladybirds, is incomprehensible. However, our late Domela Nieuwenhuis, De Ligt, and others have tried, and their posterity still try. It was not successful, it is still not successful, and it won't be in the future. We are turning the emergency into a virtue by provoking these masses. Our ways will not be prophetic or idealistic, but simply provocative. We are fully aware of the ultimate uselessness of our activities, we willingly believe that neither Johnson nor Kosygin will listen to us, and this is precisely the reason why we are free in what we do. We realise that a demonstration is senseless in the end. Therefore it is vital to make the best of a demonstration, for otherwise the demonstration would be useless, not only objectively, not only absolutely, but also relatively. We dare to say: demonstrate for demonstration's sake, provoke for provocation's sake. Resist for resistance's sake!

Are we fed up with Juliana and Bernhard, Beatrix and Claus? Is the policeman really our best friend? Are we red, are we black? Of course we are fed up with Juliana and Bernhard, Beatrix and Claus. We are not the only ones. What is special about us is that we are also fed up with every monarchy, every republic, of whatever govern-mental system and every State and authority. We are anarchists.

Now it stands to reason that the policeman is our best friend. The policeman is the most unpopular representative of the State's authority. The higher their numbers, the more impertinent and fascistic their behaviour, the better it is for us. The police provoke the masses just like we do. They do it from one side and we from the other. They make sure of irritating the people by their behaviour and thus, by authority. We endeavour to whip up this irritation into resistance. Eminently favourable in this respect is the fact that we can lure the police out of their hiding places just as soon as we think necessary. All we have to do is to sit in the street (the Bomb is a thankful and handy object for demonstration) or place a few flowers near a monument, and howling sirens announce the arrival of patrol cars with their grim-faced crews. Before the eyes of a large crowd they hack their way in on the peaceful demonstrators.2 Can one imagine a better comrade than the policeman?

Red men with an inclination towards black magic, this is how we can sum up the anarchists best. No wonder the anarchist colours are red and black. With a red future in view we haul in Beelzebub to change the Here and Now. This change, in the first instance, is a demolition job, hence Evil. Thus in this way we make a destructive impression and are not ashamed of it. If the good God has created this society, it is as well for us to ally ourselves with the Devil.

That is why we do not believe in complete non-violence as a means of fighting. To aim at Good through Good, to act as if Evil does not exist in everything and everywhere, is too one-tracked and too short-sighted a way of thinking for us. Moreover, non-violent resistance in Europe has had little effect (against the A-bomb) because this method depends too much on mass participation and on a favourable public opinion. For Gandhi non-violent resistance was eminently suitable because he had the masses behind him, but for us it is only occasionally suitable as we do not have the masses behind us and never will.

Are we revolutionaries? Are we the builders of a new society? Do we believe in anarchy?

If only we could be revolutionaries. But we are more likely to see the sun rise in the West than the outbreak of a revolution in the Netherlands. If we lived in Spain for instance, or in the Dominican Republic, then we certainly would be revolutionaries. Here and now we cannot be much more than insurrectionaries. Even as an insurrectionist here, you can bash your head to pulp against the granite wall of bourgeois pettiness. The only thing we can resort to is provocation.

As our force is inadequate to function as the demolisher of the old society, so we also cannot be the builders of a new. That really would be a happening and a creative act! Police, the army and the state apparatus gone! The workers would take over the management of their own factories, the means of production would fall into the hands of the people and power would be decentralised. This is how it happened in parts of Spain before Franco conquered the country, this is how it was in the Ukraine before the communists drove out the anarchists.

In a condition of anarchy, man at least is free. In it he has the optimal conditions for human freedom and creativity. We believe in anarchy and we put it to you as an alternative, inspiring us to our last and first aim: resistance.

• 1 "The movement had its origin in a group of anarchists, prominent among whom was a young man Roel van Duyn. A Dr. Buikhuizen wrote an article on the discontented and sometimes violent youngsters. He called them provocateurs or ‘provos’ who were pinpricking authority to find out its real faith. When a year ago another group of anarchists emerged. among them van Duyn, they took the name 'Provos' for themselves and their magazine."—Manchester Guardian, 18.6.66.
• 2This first issue of PROVO (which was seized by the police because of its article on explosives) included a report on police violence when Provos placed a bunch of flowers at the foot of the National Commemoration Monument in protest at Claus von Amsberg's visit to Amsterdam before his marriage to Princess Beatrix.

Martin Lindt's response to a request for information about the Provo movement and Jim Huggon's comments on it were, of course, written before the June riots.

From some other people on the Dutch ABC March here in April, I understand that you were interested in the Dutch anarchist Provo movement. There exist many misunderstandings even here in Holland about the Provos. It is very important to us that Provo gets more international influence. Some progress has already been made in this respect in France and Belgium, but we believe that there must be even greater opportunities for Provo to spread in England.

The Provo movement was started in April of last year by a few anarchist students and workers, some of whom had already worked with De Vrije (the Dutch equivalent of FREEDOM): they saw, however, that the methods of the old anarchist movement were too isolated, too small, and too stupid. Do not forget that the anarchist movement here is, unlike in England I think, only the remainder of the big move-ment Holland once possessed. Provo understood that anarchist theory was very relevant to present society and that its impact should, there-fore, be, basically, an immediate one. So we wanted to create a movement directed towards what we later called the "Provotariat", i.e. the conglomeration of all students, artists, beatniks, mods, rockers, and so on, who are all already protesting in their own way, but not as yet politically conscious; to make them politically conscious was our task.

From April 1965 Provo has grown amazingly quickly. Our organisational principles are thoroughly anarchist: no hierarchy, only solidarity; no orders, only spontaneity; everyone who joined the movement changed it a little with his personality and new ideas. I think that it is this aspect that has made Provo so attractive to young people of all kinds.

Provo is based upon two fundamental principles, a cultural and a political one. The cultural part is most evident in our "happenings"; which were, initially, the creative activity of some unengaged beatniks, but which are now a constant protest against authority. The police now suppress these activities as much as they can. The "happening" has another function, in our theories, contributed by the famous con-temporary Dutch artist, Constant Nieuwenhuys, concerning the "New Babylon"—the coming world of automation; but it would lead too far afield to explain all this now. Many artists are supporting us, including the well-known Dutch folk and protest song singer Simon Vinkenoog.

The political side of Provo is reflected both in its monthly publication Provo and in the demonstrations which we organise. We feel ourselves very near to, almost a part of, the Dutch "New Left" ideas. We have contacts with the American "New Left" organisation, and I think there is a new left organisation in England also, with the Committee of 100 and the Anarchist Federation of Britain. We think these movements are linked to one another, and the fact that they actually exist at all is indicative of the death of the antagonism between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, which have both melted into one big indifferent mass of unengaged people worrying only about their television and their second car. The only rebellious group left in the Welfare State is the "Provotariat". Hence our "Appeal to the International Provo-tariat".

Amsterdam, May 1966
M. J. Lindt

Comments by Jim Huggon:

I have a few things to say concerning this article which was written in response to a request to the Provos to explain their position more fully.

The first thing is that I have written to them correcting their opinion of the Committee of 100 and the Anarchist Federation of Britain as part of the "New Left". Both, I feel sure, would disown the description.

Secondly, I have told them that, at least in my opinion, there is little prospect of the Provo movement as such becoming a force over here because (a) It is to a large extent a reaction to a neo-fascist (and I do not use this term lightly) attitude prevalent in the police and the ranks of the administration. The forces of law are only potentially and occasionally neo-fascist in England, despite what we say in moments of justifiable exasperation; in Holland the epithet would seem more nearly to describe the normal day-to-day situation. (b) It is a movement more typical of the "continental" temperament and, as such, not really in keeping with the English way of thinking. (Yes, even budding revolutionaries display certain sociologically conformist tendencies, and the libertarian movement in Britain is not as overtly emotional as this.)

Thirdly, it is, I think, true to say that the Provo movement on the continent, due perhaps to its new and very attractive ideology, has acted as a magnet to many totally destructive elements that have given the ordinary Dutchman a totally false impression of its real standpoint. In this article, indeed, the writer not only admits this, but also cites it as a basic objective to encourage such elements into its fold in order to change them, and make them more politically aware. I am not sure, however, who changes who in the end.

Finally I think the Provo movement has serious flaws in its logical basis; among these is its attitude to violence and non-violence. The Provos advocate non-violence but say that anarchy cannot be created without violence. This typifies, to my mind, the confusion inherent in their outlook. Nevertheless, much confusion has arisen in England concerning their ideas, and I thought it necessary to attempt to clarify the situation somewhat.

What is the provotariat?

Provos, beatniks, pleiners, nozems, teddy boys, blousons noirs, gammler, raggare, stiljagi, mangupi, mods, students, artists, rockers, delinquents, anarchists, ban the bombers, misfits. . . .

Those who don't want a career, who lead irregular lives, who feel like cyclists on a motorway. Here in the carbon-monoxide-poisoned asphalt jungles of Amsterdam, London, Stockholm, Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, New York, Berlin, Milan, Warsaw, Chicago. . .

The provotariat is the last rebellious grouping in the Welfare State countries. The proletariat has become the slave of the politicians, happy to watch TV. It has joined its traditional enemy, the bourgeoisie, making with it, becoming a bloated, grey Arse-people.

The new class opposition is Provotariat versus Arse-people.

But the provotariat is not a class—its make-up is too heterogeneous for that. The provotariat is de-classed.

THE PROVOTARIAT IS A GROUPING OF SUBVERSIVE ELEMENTS.

Why does the provotariat rebel?

The example of millions of elbow-bargers, rat-racers and social climbers is too boring. "Success": a home of your own, a car of your own, a TV of your own, a woman-of-the-year of your own, a fridge of your own, a position of your own.

We live in a tasteless, monolithic, mass-society. The creative individual is an exception. Behaviour and consumption patterns are thrust on us by the Big Bosses, capitalist and communist alike.

But the provos want to be themselves.
They want to be the Creative Leisure Activators of tomorrow!
Down with Philips, Seven Up, Persil, BMC, Players, MacLeans.
THE PROVOTARIAT DESPISES THE SLAVE CONSUMER.
We live in an authoritarian society. The authorities (the heads and arms of the Arse-people) decide what happens. We can get stuffed. We organise happenings. The happening is our contribution to the Happening which the authorities withhold from us.

Against our will the authorities are preparing for atomic war. The full weaponry of mass destruction is being stockpiled everywhere; in America. England. France and China, and soon in West Germany, Sweden, Indonesia, Israel, India and so on. If the war in Vietnam becomes nuclear war we can expect the Northern Hemisphere to be uninhabitable!

The Authorities decide our manner of living and our manner of dying.

THE PROVOTARIAT IS SCARED OF THE AUTHORITIES' ATOMIC WAR.

So the provotariat is at odds with authorities everywhere. The police hit out at us when we demonstrate against the atom bomb, when we organise happenings, when the mods and rockers come on the scene in their own way (in subconscious protest against this society). The police work off their spite on us provos.

POLICE VERSUS PROVOTARIAT = HIERARCHY AGAINST ANARCHY.

The anarchistic spirit of the international provotariat has inspired anarchism anew. In Holland the provotariat has given birth to the anarchist Provo movement which attempts to make the provotariat of the whole world aware of its alienation. What does anarchism want?

COLLECTIVISATION. (No private property, as much as possible common property.) DECENTRALISATION. (Abolition of the State in which Government holds practically all power.) DEMILITARISATION. (Disarmament and no hierarchies.)

A new society composed of a federation of communes, each as autonomous as possible, in which private property is abolished. In the approaching cybernetic age electronic machinery will carry out the tasks of administration which are the eternal pretext for the existence of politicians. In such a technological society, decentralised into small communities, there will be real democracy.

ANARCHISM DEMANDS REVOLUTION!

PROVO despairs of the coming of Revolution and Anarchy. Nevertheless it puts its faith in anarchism; for PROVO anarchism is the only acceptable social concept. It is our ideological weapon against the authoritarian forces which threaten us. The provotariat lacks the strength for revolution but one thing remains to us:

PROVOCATION.

The subtle pin-prick--our last chance to hit the authorities in their soft, vital spots. Through provocation we force authority to tear off its mask. Uniforms, boots, helmets, sabres, truncheons, fire-hoses, police dogs, tear gas and all the other means of suppression they have lined up for us, must be produced. The authorities must be forced to act like authorities: chin jutting, eyebrows knitted, eyes glazed with rage, threatening us right and left, commanding, forbidding, condemning, convicting. They will become more and more unpopular and the popular spirit will ripen for revolution. A revolutionary feeling will once again be in the air: crisis.

A crisis of provoked authority.

Such is the gigantic provocation we call for from the International Provotariat.

PROVOKE! FORM ANARCHIST GROUPS!
PROVOS AWAKE! WE ARE LOSING A WORLD!
(Provocation No. 8, published by PROVO—an anarchist journal, Amsterdam 1965.)