See Clearly, see well
Second issue. Too soon for a balance sheet. But we do want to say one thing. Something that various comrades have confirmed.
It seems that a need had been felt for Provocazione. And the proof is that this issue went like hot cakes. Only a few dozen of the three thousand copies printed remain.
But the sales of a paper are never a real proof of its validity, although not necessarily that of the contrary.
Sometimes the first issue of a paper sells out of curiosity. Then, possibily, the number decreases. Perhaps we will do the same. Perhaps not.
Many of the comrades who distribute it have had the impression that quite a number of comrades are interested in our insurrectional positions. And that is also true of the idiocy of some who not knowing how - or not wanting - to criticise us with reason, preferred to circulate such nonsense and grossness as to push the comrades in good faith to read our positions carefully. And this has been and continues to be very useful. We therefore thank all the gossips for their involuntary propagandistic contribution who thereby at least, and against their will, turned out to be favourable to the cause of the revolution.
And then there are the objective motivations, our coherence, critical rigourness that we have always manifested in our struggles against repentence, dissociation, amnesty, social democratic possibilism, ecological ideologism, the metaphysical inaction of the eternally undecided. From this road of ours, now consigned to the clarity of things done, comrades can take note, overcoming not only the gossip but also the delation and hysteria of those who continue to see us with smoke in their eyes.
It seems on the contrary that many comrades continue to see clearly, and to see well.
See Clear to see well
Deserter O.V. Arrested in Catania
Antagonism and Self-control
Battle of Hamburg
Heavy Methods Against Squatted Community Centres
Sicily in Arms
The Other Palermo
House of General Caserio Destroyed
Sciascia and his false position against the Mafia
Revolutionary Activity and Repression
1986: 25 suicides (soldiers)
Orazio V. Arrested for Desertion
Declaration of O.V.
Declaration of Giuseppe Coniglio, total Objection
Against the Army and Repression for revolutionary antimilitrarism
An Example to be Followed
The Army and Total Objection
What we are against Tax Objection*
February ‘86: the State Kills Marco Sanna
At Genoa against the union
Clandestine Immigration and Exploitation
Via Bernina - Eviction
Students in Spain
The Reveange of the Man Who Got the Sack
Unemployed, if you protest, I arrest
Clashes against Murdoch in London
Escape system: Michael turner, Wandsworth, London - doing 12 years for robbery - town hall in handcuffs to wed - 6 men come out of van, use axes and iron bars - surround car and break windscreen, guard takes off handcuffs. Off in other van
General Casario’s house burned: communique - beginning of December house of General Casario, head of surveillance of Celio hospital in Rome which nazi Kappler “escaped” from., then demoted to colonel. Proletarians don’t forget. Militant anti-fascism and refusal to delegate to pseudo-justice. direct action to drive rats out of their sewers. Revolutionary Nuclei.
Genoa: against union - open revolt against TU leaders and politicians against restructuring in port of Genoa.
Via Bernina squat - after 4 months, autonomous centre evicted by police
Spain: over 100,000 students following 4 days’ strike last month - clashes in centre of Madrid. Attacked by police. Girl wounded when police shot. Demo moves towards ministry of Education . Clashes, wounded both sides. R. wing militants attack demo flag bearers.
Pasqua: French minister Pasque has more serious problems, personal this time. Admin scandal- given himself immunity in exchange for information. Accused of giving Chalier passport for escape to Brazil.
Police shoot: Karachi, Pakistan 12.01 - following rape and murder of 2 girls 15000 people protest. Police shoot - 25 wounded, 3 serious. 30 arrested. Important as muslum religion sees women as sub-product.
Clashes London: Struggle continues against sacking of printers by Murdoch group including times. 26.01 evening, like every Saturday for about 1 year, clashes between police and demonstrators - this time in front of the times offices - 20 police, 30 printers wounded . 1st anniversary of sacking of 5,500 employees due to restructuring. 62 arrested. Police attacked with stones and bottles. Mounted police charge crowd of about 10,000. But, although significant, this struggle, if it is not to transform itself into weekend routine, GB comrades must find propositive outlet. Either they are capable of indicating new objectives beyond the ghetto of wapping, or they will end up extinguishing themselves in self-consumption.
Vengeance of a sacked man: Davide Gialdi, Milan, received a letter, sacking him. In the night between 8 and 9 January a fire in the company caused 200,000,000 lire damage.
Unemployed - if you protest, we arrest. In Naples about 100 unemployed tried to talk to manager of Torre Annunziata. He refused, they smashed everything. Police arrest 20.
ProvocAzione 2 p. 6
WHY WE ARE AGAINST TAX RESISTANCE
We have often made a critique of tax resistance against military expenditure, but have hardly ever had occasion to go into this critique.
Talking to many comrades we have seen how there is mmuch ambiguity around the witholding of income tax due to lack of knowledge concerning the technalities of the problem, i.e. as to how State financing of the military apparatus comes about, how it emerges from “official” entries in the State budget, and how it is not possible to make a net separation between the various entries in this budget, just as it is not possible to condemn “only” military spending and consider all the rest to be “legitimate”.
The confusion on the subject is considerable and we do not want to add to it, so will try to be as clear as possible.
To start with, tyou cannot speak of a “tax” as such. The citizen does not pay a “tax” for a State “service” that can be clearly delineated. For example, when one buys a postage stamp or a railway ticket, one pays a price. Here a tax resistance would be impossible as no division of what the state imposes for the payment of services into units of measure is possible (letter, number of kilometres, etc). This is so because if that were done (for example if we put on a stamp of inferior value) the State simply does not go ahead and “sell” its service, or charges a fine to the receiver.
The concept of “tax” is different and is not comparable to the entity “service” which the state claims to supply. For example, in the case of the military apparatus, the state claims to see to the defence of the “nation”. In order to do this, i,e, to supply arms and apparatus to this immense structure which to simplify things we will call “army”, the state, through the budget, detracts a quota amounting to the sum decided by the financial entries, and destines it to such and end. The citizen can certainly pay less, i.e. decide autonomously to cut his income tax, but that does not alter the State’s financing of the military apparatus, because here we are not dealing with a “tax” in the sense of a paid “service” as the latter is not aimed at “defending” the citizen against hypothetical external enemies so much as defending itself against the dangers that could arise from a transformsation of a non thinking citizen into a conscious individual capable of demanding their rights with revolutionary action. Now, this function, considered to be of primary importance by the State would be financed in some way , even if the State were to find itself faced with a situation of total tax resistance concerning the amount which it was to hypothetically subtract from the budget to finance the military structure. It would not do other things that it supplies today —it would not finance the theatres, would treat fewer patients, reduce social welfare, it would reduce some of its expenses, or, more simply, would increase taxes, forcing the citizen to pay more in the other sectors that they are willing to pay.
But these are not the only contradictions at the base of the concept of fiscal objection against military expenditure.
First, the state budget is no longer—for a long time now—a “readable” document of accounts, in the sense that it cannot be compared to the budget of a joint stock company. Estimates of expenditure can change from year to year. The concept of unity of balance comes less from the presence of accounting related to separate administrations, some costs that are foreseen are then used in a fdifferent way by the State organs to those authorised, the specification of costs is not all that clear. On this last point it becomes evident how so many power games can occur. In practice there is a distinction in the budget between “current expenditure” and “spese in conto capitale”. The first serve to make the state mechanism function and are specified carefully (well, in thousands of millions, a few more or less do make much difference..); the second, those in capital account serve instead to make the investments to obtain income for the state which can then provide for making other structures of its own mechanism function. Obviously, this part of the budget cannot be very clear and, even less would it be possible to see future income that will be earned with these investments. And then, when the State needs more funds (as, say, tax resistance increases) to finance the military structures for example, it could over estimate the results of these investments (something that is very easy to do, all it requires is a super-evaluation of the giacenze of magazzino of the state industries) and so find itself with a higher income on its hands to finace what it wants with.
Secondly, and this is a contradiction which concerns all partial objection concerning a reduction in payment. The very mentality of those who make this decision is based on a respectable democratic attitude. In fact, by reducing the tax to be paid one is affirming that one does not intend to pay the amount relative to the financing of the military structure but then, at the same time, pays all the rest, i.e. all that is relative to the functioning of the other state structures which, by implication, turn out to be “good” in the same way as rthe military turns out to be “bad”, not just that, the very activity of the state as a whole (excluding the military part) is legitimised and is therefore considered “positive” and worthy of financing.
Third, such initiatives get a certain mass response, precisely because they gain the sympathy of the respectable left who in essence are no more than a symbolic manifestation of dissent. In fact this mass potential breaks down as soon as the first injunctions for payment and the first pignoramenti turn up. This is in fact quite logical. Whoever pays taxes (the taxes they consider legitimate) does so because they have an income that they want to protect, because they have something to defend, because they do not want to have the problems one normally has when one does not 2pay” the state. Now, this trouble breaks out immediately as soon as the state becomes aware of tax resistance and reduction of payments. Hence the judicial actions and relative unbreeching. A capacity to “resist” is contradictory in that it would have been more logical “not to pay” the State at all, at least eliminating the preceding contradiction, that which ends up legitimising the State’s other activities.
To conclude, we do not agree with an anarchist intervention in the field of tax resistance against military expenditure. Unless one wants to insert the anarchist struggle within a wide symbolic project of dissent concerning the military structure, a project that some of the (more or less) reformist parliamentary forces can carry out far more effectively than we can. To use forms of struggle which sooner or later anarchist must take a distance from critically, in our opinion does nothing other than disperse our efforts which, as we all know, are very limited.