Anarchism after MetaphysicsMy point is not that everything is bad, but thateverything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we alwayshave something to do. So my positionleads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism.Michel Foucault, On theGenealogy of Ethics.Dangers with PostanarchismPostanarchism is not monolithic, but one of itsmajor challenges has been to rewrite understandings and practices tagged asanarchist that have failed to speak to needs and desires of the disenfranchisedand marginalized. For Todd May, SaulNewman, Lewis Call, and others, there has emerged a need to look critically athow anarchism has produced an idea of a revolutionary subject that is deeplyembedded in nineteenth century humanism, which was born with theEnlightenment. This rereading ofanarchism has come through the influence of what is termedpoststructuralism. The understandingthese authors have of both anarchism and poststructuralism, however, begs amore radical insertion of difference, curiously enough, since both legacieshave emerged from preoccupations with social difference. There is no reason toassume that either anarchism or poststructuralism can be corrected byone-another, or that a synthesis of both is of necessary value for emancipatorystruggles. If these two legacies haveanything in common - and in making this assumption one has to be clear thatboth are contested and contradictory it is that they show up asconfrontations to dominance. In light ofthis, their use value has to be asserted in contexts of dominance, and willvary as context varies. The authors that havebeen considered under the rubric of postanarchism until now have invariablysituated the new kind of revolutionary subject. In some instances, they have given way to new readings of anarchism thatwould level it down to the reading they make of poststructuralism, challengingmacro-oppositions to the State or capital perse, thus precluding the main targets of revolutionary activity in anarchismstradition. There certainly arepossibilities that open up with the entry into anarchism of micropolitics andthe decentered subject, as these authors sustain. However, anarchisms revolutionary politicsalso has a lot of value, one that has been lived through history from thecommunes, to workers councils, to May 68 and to the so-calledanti-globalization movement. In this essay, I willargue that a poststructuralist rereading of anarchism, and vice-versa, comes asa necessary event. I will also arguethat this event is in itself multiple, and that unfortunately the authorslabeled as postanarchists have a unitary interpretation of both legacies thatwill inevitably lead to challenges[1] to theirvoices as representative of either anarchism or poststructuralism as to theselegacies greatest strengths. I willpush for a discussion of these legacies that takes their challenges tometanarratives and guides for action seriously, questioning thus thereification of micropolitics and the decentered subject that is happeningwithin postanarchism and postmodern thought. In the spirit of the Situationists, I write this essay as a bomb thatunveils the complicity of (post)modern thought and practice with the structuresof inequity. In that same spirit, I dothis with the hope that philosophy will somehow- be realized.***Anarchism has been the tradition that perhapsmost continuously critiques the use of power. As with Marxism, this power has been dominantly localized by anarchistsin class domination, acting through the State, Church, and the capitaliststructures