the theory,philosophy, or ethics regarding those thoughts, made itself problematic anddoomed to reproduce serious oppressions. That is the destiny of any ideology that wants to become a guide forhuman action. Postanarchism can berelevant if it stops preaching and starts making its critiques within action inthe world, and not as a provider of the basis for that action. It is failing to speak to lived life. Not only does it need to be more inclusive ofthinkers outside academia, it also needs to think its important thoughts withinstruggles of people and communities that are oppressed. Nothing is more important for anarchistthinkers. Postanarchist authors, in their wish to providea new synthesis between anarchism and poststructuralism, partake of themodernist projects around truth, power, and subjectivity. In making knowledge their central concern,they yield to one of the greatest imperative creeds of Western culture, onethat was unveiled most brilliantly by Nietzsche: the primacy of Knowledge overaction. Knowledge as I am referring tois the same as Truth. And Truth has dominantlyappeared through the use of dualisms and reactive modes of thought.Anarchist Dualisms Anarchism, in Westernculture, partakes of the fundamental duality of Western consciousness.[9] The theory of power as repression intersectsat many points with the good and the evil, the (totally) free and theunfree. Power then has been out on theextreme of the evil. The world appearsas a polarity. This discourse is alsothe one of normalization, where the normal is opposed to what it is not, or whatneeds to become it. Foucault identifiedthese discourses of truth with morality, following Nietzsche, and showed howthey functioned in specific mechanisms of power. An interesting study could be made regardinganarchisms normalization. We could lookat how its discourse navigates within good/evil, oppressor/oppressed dualisms,what complicities this has marked with dominant cultures, and what effects andresistances it has also propelled in history. That would be a task for thinkers of anarchism and poststructuralism (orpostmodernism?). Of course, such a studywould have to question its own assumptions about what is anarchism or poststructuralism. One of anarchismsdualisms has been reform/revolution. Themovement has with few exceptions historically identified itself with the secondof the pair. Postanarchists can be congratulatedfor their (sometimes, immanent) critique of this dualism. I must say, though, that they have alsokilled part of the action that was foundational to that dualism. The important thing for either a reform or arevolution was that something happened. In that sense they proved more efficient thanwhat postanarchists push us to do: to think beforeacting. To think decentered at themicropolitical, in their use of it, is to understand the world asfundamentally dual, and therefore dead. They are remaking what they critique, something which Foucault forexample went far from doing as transparently. It is claimed by postanarchists that we areable to see now, thanks to poststructuralism, nodes in the webs ofpower. The relationality of power hasbeen described this way, and the task that is now put to us is to analyze whichnodes have more importance than others for intervention[10]. These explanations of the mechanisms of powercan be of great effect, and were put to use majestically by Foucault in hisworks, although he called these fictions.