1. The identification of anarchism with time rather than space is a Bergsonian move that is rather misleading. While time is the dimension of change, of a future-oriented becoming, which is essential to the conception and practice of a transformative politics, it is also the case that anarchism requires a radical spatiality that escapes the static assumptions of the above theory. Yes, space is extant, but it is also produced. Space is no more given than is the future, and it is equally the domain of struggle. Space is also the condition of possibility of the simultaneity of difference. This means that an anarchist practice needs to explicitly recognize the role of space in our projects if we are to take seriously the existence of difference. Anarchist practice is deeply dependent, not on the marginalization of space, but on the centrality of the project of taking space from authority and producing our own spaces in which multiplicity and equality are facilitated.

2. It is insufficient to posit the goal of an anarchist political economy as the creation of a situation in which alienation is absent. This presupposes an essentialist view of the human condition that positions our work as one of the destruction of hierarchy and the natural rise after said destruction of direct relations. We need Marx for this. The lack of alienation is not the same as the existence of freedom. What needs to be enunciated is a theory of the construction of positive and equitable relations that emerge MATERIALLY out of the rubble of the relations of domination and oppression. The emergence of this relation is by no means natural and is a fully political project. This means the articulation of a thoroughly materialist intersectionality that is adequate to the prefigurative practice of horizontal relations, that can also achieve a systematic critique of existing hierarchies.

If anarchism is a movement ontologically rooted in time rather than in space, then it is truly utopian in the most direct sense of the word, u = no, topia = place. An anarchism that is no-place has no existence in space and therefor does not now exist. If anarchism does not now exist then it cannot engage in the prefigurative politics that are central to its theory. Non-prefigurative anarchism is no different from traditional communism, continually putting off the reality of the crisis of today for the unreachable ‘no-place’ of tomorrow. Additionally, an anarchism whose critique of capitalism is centered around the reduction of alienation will always be an individual enterprise, alienation is a product of the social relations of capitalism, not the cause of inequality. Alienation is one of the individual effects of class society (which also operates along multiple and non-identical trajectories of race, gender, sexuality etc), as such it is not possible to build a truly collective or cooperative alternative based on an individualistic critique. We need to adopt a critique of capital and domination in which the collective processes of systems of domination are regarded alongside the individualizing aspects, otherwise our critique is liberal rather than radical - and that, I think, is something we do not want.