i'm not sure if our friendly post-anarchist is still checking in here, so i'll jump.
my understanding of post-anarchism is that it is academics' response to classical anarchism, mostly posited by people who come from activist tendencies - so it has arrived at some of the same positions of post-left anarchists, but mostly without talking to anarchists in other tendencies. so yes, there is a deep assumption of activism, but the theory isn't particularly activist, afaict.
here are some excerpts from saul newman (one of the post@ poster boys) in "the politics of post-anarchism", which is online.
*What is more important is that the anti-globalization movement, without being consciously anarchist, embodies an anarchistic form of politics in its structure and organization1—which are decentralized, pluralistic and democratic—as well as in its inclusiveness. Just as classical anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin insisted, in opposition to Marxists, that the revolutionary struggle could not confined or determined by the class interests of the industrial proletariat, and must be open also to peasants,the lumpenproletariat, and intellectuals déclassé, etc, so too the contemporary movement includes a broad range of struggles, identities and interests—trade unions, students,environmentalists, indigenous groups, ethnic minorities, peace activists, and so on.
Given anarchism's contribution to radical politics and, in particular, its theoretical proximity to current post-Marxist projects, there has been a curious silence about this revolutionary tradition on the part of contemporary radical theory. However, I would also suggest that just as contemporary theory should take account of the intervention of anarchism, anarchism itself could benefit greatly through an incorporation of contemporary theoretical perspectives, in particular those derived from discourse analysis, psychoanalysis and poststructuralism. Perhaps we could say that anarchism today has been more about practice than theory, despite, of course, the interventions of a number of influential modern anarchist thinkers like Noam Chomsky, John Zerzan and Murray Bookchin. I have already pointed to the anarchy in action that we see in the new social movements that characterize our political landscape. However, the very conditions that have given rise to the anarchist moment—the pluralization of struggles, subjectivities and sites of power—are also the conditions that highlight the central contradictions and limits of anarchist theory. Anarchist theory is still largely based in the paradigm of Enlightenment humanism—with its essentialist notions of the rational human subject, and its positivistic faith in science and objective historical laws. *
there's a start, anyway...