It was a joke. I know in the books post-left anarchism makes some good points that I agree with (well, some of them), but actual post-left anarchists I meet aren't on the same page. They are always lifestylist and individualist to the core, with a shit strategy for actually overthrowing the system (hence: their conception that the question of economics is somehow completely separate from the question of revolution, or that there is an anti-capitalist, horizontal economic model somehow outside of "the left"). That grounding is what feeds their lack of organizing directly against capital with gasp unions. The whole movement is a bunch of academics trying to stay relevant and "edgy", but at the expense of being pragmatic.

It's like an aversion to economics because they are too hip to discuss and take action around capital, or how we should sustain ourselves after capitalism. Ah ha, that's what I don't like about them: they are pretentious hipsters that dismiss others while claiming they are some cutting edge shit- but actually they are hollow and ineffective.

I mean, the most diehard post-leftist I know has a bourgeois economic understanding- that value come out of thin air and that prices are set by utility, and they'll vehemently defend that against my "leftist" analysis. I mean, if an economic analysis isn't "leftist", it naturally defaults into being bourgeois liberalism, the default ideology. They'd probably reject this too, and try to say there wont even be an economy post rev. lol.

They posture in a way that dismisses much more radical understandings of economics, but from a place that doesn't even understand their own thoughts are post-liberalism.