Foucault was suspicious of anynarrative that tries to unveil power as it lives, as if it were mirroreddirectly on forms of knowledge, since he disbelieved any translation as aone-to-one correspondence. In explainingknowledge and power as related, he never equated them. His work was geared towards effects in theworld, effects in the prison reform, gay, or anti-psychiatry and othermovements of which he was part. Thedescription of how power or knowledge functions was an exercise that alwaysfailed, therefore his allusion to his work as fiction. Nevertheless, fictions also have effects inthe world, and he certainly knew how to write them in order to provokeimportant effects. Foucault did, aspostanarchists claim, believe that revolutions cannot deliver what they usuallypromise: total liberation. Moreover,forms of domination are always present. He states it clearly:Humanity does not progress from combat to combat until it arrives atuniversal reciprocity, where the rule of law finally replaces warfare; humanityinstalls each of its violences in a system of rules and thus proceeds fromdomination to domination.[11] Clearly, then, for Foucault any social actionwill always reproduce forms of domination. In trying to liberate ourselves, we will inevitably reproduceoppression. In order to work withinreproduction, Foucault proposes that we look at the mechanisms of power thataffect spaces that are important to us, and analyze those. Within them, there will always be what hecalls the micropolitical level, which corresponds to the contingencies andpractices of power that directly and effectively relate to the space we areanalyzing. This kind of interventionsurely marks its difference from the traditional anarchist emphasis onrevolution as a grand change of society, but Foucaults commitment to changewas also great. He also considered thathe practiced revolutionary action with regards to his prison reform work, whichhe defined as the simultaneous agitation of consciousness and institutions[12].Foucaults use of the term agitation is significant. Itpoints to the uncontrollable nature of revolutionary action. It is also, interestingly, a term used byboth revolutionaries and reactionaries throughout history. The term clearly implies that theconsequences of those actions will not correspond directly and totally with theintentions put on them. It also implies that the points, or nodesof intervention chosen by subjects may not be the most effective ones forliberation. It is here that thepostmodern discourse on the micropolitical collapses. If the so-called nodes that are mosteffective for a certain liberation are inextricably linked to positionsoccupied in the State or in factories, for example, can we act effectively totransform those and thereby propel some forms of freedom? In acting at the macropolitical level, if this thing exists at all, have we not beenrelatively successful, as the histories of the communes, the Spanish Civil War,or May 68 showed? In fact, can we reallybe sure of the line that divides the micro and the macro? In their attempts to regard themicropolitical as the primary site for intervention, and thereby rejectingrevolutionary action against the State or Capital, postanarchist authors reducethe possibilities for these actions. Surely, the State for example is not a monolith, it does not operatesolely from above, rather, it lives through subjects (in the double sense ofthe word). Nevertheless, to affirm thatthere is no ground on which