to challenge the State as a whole through analysisor action is to neglect important thinkers of both anarchism andpoststructuralism. Most importantly, itis to deny what they have done. Foucaultcritiqued the view that the State played an exclusive role in domination, buthe said he did not want to minimize the importance and effectiveness of Statepower[13]. It so remains that the anarchist critique ofthe State as a site of struggle is not inherently in conflict with apoststructuralist perspective. Foucaults worries were that in affecting the State, revolutionaryaction would not affect the power mechanisms that act to sustain itsdominations, such as those residing in family, propriety, subjectivity,knowledge, and others. However, Foucaultnever positioned himself against macropolitics per se. This is because hedid not partake of the creed in knowledge as origin of action. He did not believe that the grounds forpolitical effectiveness can be finally established. As life changes, political understandingsmust also change. His micropolitics isan intervention into the discourses of his time that were geared towards totalliberation. They are not to be made intoan ideology. Interestingly enough, postanarchist authors have interpretedmicropolitics as the most effective mode of revolutionary action. Ok. Enough. Radical thought needsto speak to lived problems. Thought canbe a lived problem. However, by makingthought our central concern, we will inevitably be enslaved. The critique of thought has to be made withregards to its effects in the world, and not in order to contribute to analready defective knowledge. Indeclaring themselves against humanismas knowledge, postanarchists show their aversion to life[14], sinceevery thought can and does produce life. In order to resist oppression, people need many times to assert theirhumanity, their crippling identities, no matter how much that furthersdomination upon them. But I must confessI am pretty glad at the oppositional, dualistic, reactive stance of postmoderndiscourses towards humanism. Perhapseven anti-dialecticians need dialectics after all perhaps.I only used the term postanarchist here so thatI would not have to repeat the names of the three authors commented upon. Postanarchism is not a thing, and all those authors do have important insights tooffer. Even so, I think that they havedeveloped totalizing frameworks that exclude some of the best thoughts and practicesdeveloped by both anarchists and poststructuralists. Those thoughts make knowledge secondary toeffective action in the world; knowledge becomes a lived practice. There is no way to engage that unless byrefusing to live within the dualisms of Western culture, and to engage theOthers of this culture in this practice. No universal foundations for action exist, not even the anti-humanism ofsome postmodern paranoia. Thinkingthrough action is more needed than ever. Go OnThe humanist subject is not a foundationwithout which the State or Capital would fade away. And still anarchism needs to remove them.So there is no sense at all to the proposition that along narrative is now finished, and that another narrative is under way.[15]So we probably need to do workbeyond knowledge.ReferencescitedBakunin, Michael. (1970). God and the State. New York: Dover Publications. 86p.______________ (1980). Guerin, Daniel(ed.). Textos Anarquistas (Anarchist Texts). PortoAlegre: L&PM Editores. 190p.Call, Lewis. (2002). Postmodern Anarchism. Maryland:Lexington Books. 139p.Cohn, Jesse & Wilbur, Shawn. (2003). Whats Wrong With Postanarchism? Retrieved