Dot, just because it's "leftist" (and let's ignore for the moment that post-left anarchy, though it has a few good points, is mainly just silly, hyper-theoretical, ungrounded bullshit ["let's pretend history is irrelevant so we don't have to pretend it contradicts most of what we say"]), doesn't mean it's not practical.
Leftists (and let's also not forget that the lumping of all historically grounded anarchists into the "leftist" category is the same type of identity politics that post-leftists foolishly think they can get rid of) have gotten a hell of a lot done throughout history (as I said, ignoring that fact doesn't make it true). And many of those "tropes" (though not all, I'll admit) have very good reason for existing.
Without leftist worker strikes and protests, those oh so ineffectual means of change, we both would most likely be hopeless wage slaves, totally incapable of having this discussion. That very fact is shining evidence that political power is absolutely necessary to create change WHEN operating within a centralized political system. Power is freedom, freedom to create new ideas and freedom to work for more power.
As for the masses of people, I didn't say that was the ONLY way to get power (not political power, that implies control of others, but power over themselves WITHIN a political system). However, when operating within a political system, public support is absolutely necessary to make your ideas heard. Even when operating outside of the political system, as the squatters did, public support is absolutely necessary, or the state will destroy you.
Now, I know I've been saying " within a political system" a lot, and I know that walks me right into the other post-leftist argument, "well, why do you assume that we have to work within the system."
Post-leftists really only have one real alternative to leftist attempts at progress. Post-leftists state that instead of "waiting for the revolution", or operating within the system, we should seek to form autonomous communities wherever we can.
I actually LOVE this idea, I think it's great, it's the exact same kind of non-participation I was arguing for earlier. However, it is absolutely naive to think that these autonomous communities could ever be successful on any kind of scale without some level of political power within the controlling system, a mass of people, and support from the public.
Anarchist communities are often seen by the state as a threat (and rightly so), and there are VERY few places on this earth that some state hasn't laid claim to. As a result, it is not possible for an anarchist community to just "hide" from the state indefinitely. Eventually, that community WILL have to interact with the state, and most likely, unless that community has some significant political power within the state, a mass of people to back it up, or public support, it will be quickly conquered. The attempted Ukrainian anarchist Free Territory is a great example, because even though they had some level of political power, AND a mass of people, AND some public support, the Soviet state still conquered them when they became a threat to Soviet ideals.
The struggle against the state, until the state collapses (and even afterward) is eternal, and until that struggle is successful, it cannot be said that any anarchist community is truly free. As a result, I see both post-left anarchy and left-anarchy as simply tools in a theoretical array of synthesis anarchism. Elements of both approaches, as well as from most other approaches (excluding anarcho-capitalism) must be used, otherwise there will be no real success.
Oh, and, people DO NOT like violence. It is easy enough for the state to pursuade US citizens to endorse a war in the Middle East where it doesn't really affect any of us except our young males, who we give a flower and pretend to appreciate. But when violence is on your doorstep, it is an entirely different dynamic. Citizens of the US don't fully understand that because the US is one of the few states that hasn't experienced violent occupation and invasion by another state. As a result, like the Athenians of ancient Greece, we have gotten arrogant. Domestic violence very often leads to fear and alienation. Even those violent movements that are successful very often abandon their cause simply to continue fighting. And those violent movements that DO take power, are unable to stop their violence. Instead, they inflict violence on the people. After all, a movement built on violence has no real alternative to dealing with dissidence.
One of the resounding, most powerful anarchist arguments is that government breeds violence, violence is "inherent in the system," to quote Monty Python. Does it really make sense to undermine ourselves by fighting the state LIKE another state would?
Oh, and finally, YES, the division of empire is a good thing. Why would you be so short sighted as to claim that it has no value? I thought I explained that bit fairly well...