one-another. However, they do point to the complexity not only of thought, but alsoof practice, since what Bakunin wrote about were lived relations, and to someextent his writing shows attentiveness to social life as relational. That iswhy the claim that anarchism is based on a theory of subjectivity that isessentialist will only tell half, or less, of the story. One would have to explain why it is thatKropotkin envisaged myriad, perhaps infinite, forms society would take afterhis revolution (in The Conquest of Bread,for example) if his theory of human subjectivity were as foundational aspostanarchists have maintained (and clearly, there is no theoretical contradiction here). While Todd May sees anarchism andpoststructuralism as resembling each other on many fronts, Lewis Call wants tosee anarchism in the face of poststructuralism, and Saul Newman to change both,one in face of the other. To do this,they must consider anarchism as one single thing, and do that forpoststructuralism as well. Todd May says that anarchism has consideredpower as a network of relationships, and conflates that with poststructuralistdiscourses on power. While it may betrue of a great number of anarchist practices around domination, that they haveworked as if power is dispersed and relational, it is also true that many ofits practices have equaled power with domination, and centered on the State,Capital, the Church, as founding causes. Other stories May tells about anarchism that make it appear monolithicinclude his view that all anarchists are for federalism (when many are simplyfor local, closed communes, for example) and that the thought presented byanarchism is founded uponessentialism or naturalism[6]. To not recognize that anarchism has other -if it indeed has any - foundations other than theoretical ones, like historicalcircumstances for example, should be deeply suspicious to any post- thinker. Todd May had to stretch poststructuralismquite a bit into a political philosophy framework, and anarchism into aconceptual one, in order to configure the amount of similarities he could findbetween them. Todd Mays project, aswell as Lewis Calls and Saul Newmans, has been to abandon humanism. However, they could not abandon Knowledge astheir primary site of thinking. And we know on which subject that thing must begrounded.Knowledge at the OriginThat power is not formed by a simple oppositionbetween rulers and ruled, that it relates to other forms of sociability, andthat it is always already historical and therefore nonsubjective in the senseof a subject as origin, are all contributions made by Foucault to broaderdefinitions of power. Postanarchistauthors have regarded these definitions as trulyanarchist, as if anarchism had been waiting for its own revelation in historyof its true self. Thus, after critiquingclassical anarchism for its teleologies and essentialisms, and for its repressivetheory of power, they go on to affirm that true anarchism has appeared, througha truer reading. While I have to agreethat those facets of anarchisms theories should be questioned, I do not seethe need to incorporate Foucault, Nietzsche, Derrida, Deleuze and others intothe label anarchist. For one, bothNietzsche and Foucault explicitly rejected such label, Nietzsche would beparticularly terrorized by it, and Foucault even rejected to be called apoststructuralist[7]. For these authors, these labels level downtheir differences