The Dutch Provos: Burlesque Neo-Liberals or Anarchist Utopians?

In the mid-1960s, a loose band of artists, hippies, and anarchists burst onto the political stage in the Netherlands. Known as the Provos (as in to provoke), they led a mini-rebellion against the established order that rattled elites and left behind an inspired legacy of anti-authoritarian activism.

Richard Kempton documents this legacy in his recently released, Provo: Amsterdam’s Anarchist Revolt, the first book-length history of the group in English. He traces the emergence, highpoints, and decline of the Provos, in addition to providing tangential but interesting appendices on topics such as the relationship between the Provos and the Situationists, the history of anarchism in Amsterdam, and others. He does a good job at placing the group in the context of the radical currents from which it emerged and at relating the Provos’ trajectory to some of the political peculiarities of the Netherlands. While a deeper examination of the group’s ideas and internal organization would have enriched the book, I found it to be thoughtful, informative, and fun to read. (For a quick introduction to the Provos, you may wish to check out this article as well as this one.)

Kempton illustrates the Provos’ extraordinary ability to expose the contradictions of the liberal democratic society in which they lived while making authorities look absurd in the process. Of their many feats that he records, their “White Bicycle Plan” is surely the most famous. It began as a response to the traffic jams and air pollution plaguing Amsterdam: instead of passively accepting the automobile’s toxic domination of urban life, the Provos pressed the municipal government to give out vast numbers of unlockable, white bikes throughout the city. These cycles–easily identifiable due to their color–would be available to any passerby who felt like riding one. He or she could take it to his or her destination but, once there, would be obliged to leave it for other citizens. This ingenious plan was clearly a sensible, low-cost, and environmentally friendly way to meet at least some of Amsterdam’s transportation needs.

My White Bicycle: Tom Woodgate’s mini-documentary about the Provos’ “White Bicycle Plan” (featuring Luud Schimmelpennink, a former Provo).

The Provos distributed fifty bikes at their own expense to jump start the program but immediately ran into problems with the police, who objected to their attempt to socialize the means of transportation. In fact, the cops impounded the bikes furnished by the Provos on the pretext that doling out unlocked bicycles “encouraged theft.” In other words, they took bicycles to prevent them from being taken!

The Provos were naturally delighted to find the police offering Amsterdamers such a concrete lesson in the bankruptcy of the criminal justice system: thanks to their unintentional complicity in the Provos’ scheme, the city became a classroom in which attentive residents could learn a lesson normally buried in obscure anarchist pamphlets and disquisitions: the cops’ primary objective is not to serve the people but rather to protect the status quo, no matter how noxious and irrational it might be.

The “White Bicycle Plan” was one among multiple Provo “plans,” all designed to push people toward cooperative, ecological solutions while undermining the legitimacy of the established order. They outlined many of these in a brochure entitled What the Provos Want , which they released in 1966, shortly before successfully competing for a seat on Amsterdam’s City Council (“Vote Provo for a Laugh!” was one of their campaign slogans). Kempton summarizes key points:

  • The White Bicycle Plan: In an effort to address traffic congestion in the center of the city, white bicycles would become the common property of all the people of Amsterdam. Automobiles would be excluded from the center of the city.
  • The White Chimney Plan: A mandate that chimneys have special built-in incinerators to combat air pollution; with fines for infractions.
  • The White Chicken Plan: Amsterdam’s police force should be recast as unarmed friendly social workers with candy and band-aids in their pockets.
  • The White Dwelling Plan: In an effort to ease the city’s housing shortage the city government would publish a weekly list of empty buildings so people without homes could squat them.
  • The White Wives Plan: Developed by Irene Donner-Van der Wetering, this plan called for sex education for young people. Among other things it mandated information on contraception, medical clinics for young girls, and teaching family planning.
  • The White Schools Plan: Students would have a say in expanding opportunities for democratically organized study and discussion.
  • The White City Plan: Amsterdam would become the first urban area committed to implementing Constant Nieuwenhuis’s New Babylon.(1)

After reading these “plans,” I found myself surprised to realize that today, approximately forty years later, many of their demands (“plans”) have become non-controversial elements of mainstream social policy. For example, numerous cities have experimented with free bicycle programs (such as Portland, Madison, and Barcelona), and bike paths and restrictions on vehicular traffic are common in American cities. Likewise, controls on air pollution are pervasive; young people often receive some degree of sex education; and students frequently play a role in setting academic policy at the college and sometimes high school level. Obviously, aspects of their program remain unrealized–I know of no city that publishes lists of squatable buildings, for instance–but, nonetheless, much of the Provo platform has lost its controversial, provocative quality.

This raises a difficult question about the meaning of the Provos’ legacy. What if the Provos (and corresponding groups like the Yippies in the United States) ultimately need to be understood less as anarchist instigators than as the avant-garde of a more lenient, culturally flexible, and ecologically friendly capitalism? While it’s true that they set stodgy authorities into a frenzy four decades ago, it may be that those authorities were simply anachronistic obstacles and that the Provos actually helped modernize capitalism by undermining their legitimacy.

Issues such as these are beyond the scope of Kempton’s book and, for that matter, most works on the history of anarchism. However, I believe that they are worth pursuing and I hope that the publication of this long overdue book on the Provos indicates that a more serious, complicated engagement with our past is on the horizon.


1. Richard Kempton, Provo: Amsterdam’s Anarchist Revolt (Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 2007), 81.

Share on Facebook
This entry was posted in Book Reviews, Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Dutch Provos: Burlesque Neo-Liberals or Anarchist Utopians?

  1. Stevphen says:

    Great blog. Thanks Chuck!

    One of the most interesting things in the book is the idea that the Provos dissolved in order to avoid becoming recuperated / contained within ‘the system.” Of course this doesn’t mean that their demands can’t be anyways, as you point out.

    The thing that raises for me, one of the things that I take most from autonomist political theory is that recuperation is not the exceptional case of how capitalism and the state develop, but rather its driving motor. So it’s no real surprise that such a dynamic exists, that radical demands don’t remain radical. The question that it raises for me is how to work through and around dynamics of recuperation without either taking that as the end of the possibility of radical politics or an excuse to avoid all forms of organization that are anything more than ephemeral. I don’t think the Provos answer this question, but they do provide some more interesting fodder for thinking through that sort of question, which remains an open one.

  2. Chuck says:

    Hi Stevphen,

    Thanks very much for your comment on my post. I appreciate that.

    It’s interesting that you use the term “recuperated,” which was not part of the left’s vocabulary prior to WWII and appears to have entered it around the time that the Provos went into action. For my sake, I have some doubts about its utility: for example, what would it mean for a group to be recuperated or not recuperated? To recoup is essentially “to restore” or “to recover” and the implication is that a recuperated group has been restored or recovered for the system (whereas one that is not recuperated is lost to it). I see the point, but I’m resistant to the idea that a group or individual could be “beyond” the system and, in fact, it seems to me that the most effective, penetrating revolutionary groups would need to be seen as part of the system (in the broader, social order sense) in so far as they express and act on its contradictions.

    I think of the Provos’ self-dissolution as their attempt to maintain their own revolutionary integrity. I support that (of course) but their integrity or lack thereof is ultimately kind of beyond the point. I see why you raised this, but I think that there was something very self-referential about the Provos and the trend in radicalism that they represented.

    In any case, I’m really glad that Autonomedia published Kempton’s book. It makes it much easier to open up some of these thorny questions about the history of the left.

    Best,
    Chuck

  3. Stevphen says:

    Thanks for that Chuck. Out of curiosity, do you when the word recuperation appears in leftist thought? I always associate it with the Situationists, although I’m not sure if they were the first to use the concept Ken Knabb rececently wrote that he doesn’t think the concept should be rendered as ‘recuperation’ in English since this has a different meaning (he prefers ‘co-optation’). Strangely enough the SI has some article from 1965 where they disagree that that translation, arguing that recuperation is a collective, class dynamic, while that ‘co-optation’ is an individual notion that doesn’t describe what they want to describe.

    Personally I think the question of recuperation is important not because one can go beyond recuperation but precisely that is not possible. If something is beyond recuperation it also not worth struggling. So it’s not about self-referntiality or purity, but about finding avenues for political recomposition. This is incidentally what I’m writing about, or trying to, so I suspect you’ll be seeing my stuff sooner or later in your new role at AK (in fact Zach, Charles, and Lorna have my proposal now – I can send it you too if you’d like. I’d like to hear what you think, as you’ve always been great with commenting on writing in a helpful and constructively critical way).

  4. Chuck says:

    Hey Stevphen,

    Thanks very much for your comments. I appreciate that. I don’t know when or how the word “recuperation” entered radical thought, but I’d be very interested to find out. … In general, I link the term with the eclipse of the progressive vision of history within radical thinking that occurred between the 1940s and 1960s, when militants starting imagining that they had to break out of history as opposed to expedite its development.

    Do you remember the name of the Situationist article on “recuperation”? I’d like to check that out.

  5. “they took bicycles to prevent them from being taken!” you

    That’s exactly what would happen in LA, but what an excellent idea. An excellent way to take control back into the power of the people.

    I think the US gov’t (or any gov’t) is way more afraid of ideas like this than they are of people bombing things. The gov’t most fears radicalism that can bring people together and get people out of the haze of capitalism.

    Browne

  6. Yvonne Liu says:

    Washington, DC is starting a bike sharing program, SmartBike DC, next month. For a $40 annual membership fee, SmartBike users can check out three-speed bicycles for three hours at a time. Similar programs have proved successful in Europe. The Vélib program in Paris and Bicing in Barcelona, Spain, both started around a year ago and already offer thousands of bicycles. All inspired by the Provos in Amsterdam in the 1960s.

    Unfortunately, the district’s program is to be a public-private enterprise, sponsored by advertising by Clear Channel. This is the company that infamously censored artists such as Rage Against the Machine and the Dixie Chicks on their radio stations because they weren’t deemed patriotic enough after Sept. 11 or because of their criticisms of the Iraq war.

    More on SmartBike DC — http://smartbikedc.com/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word