Two quick reactions to Orsan and Gordon. First, thanks Orsan for acknowledging the importance of the multi-perspectival work we are doing. You mention the potential charge of 'reformism'. I do not consider my position 'reformist'. Revolutionaries were never against reforms and my ultimate goal is phase transition, i.e. overcoming infinite growth based capitalism, while at the same time being meliorist (as defined by William James). This means that, while the end goal is in mind, measures that advance the cause in any way, are seen as positive milestones. So I would call my position 'adaptive'. Revolution as classically conceived, as a violent overthrow of one system by another, I consider as organic events (even Lenin wrote one month before the russian revolution: "unfortunately, I will not witness the revolution in my lifetime) that are outside of anyone's control, (most of all the revolutionaries themselves) and mostly caused by the inability of the previous system to adapt. If you look at the 'bourgeois revolutions', you will see a wide variety of revolutionary subjects (the russian star who abolished serfdom, the junkers in prussia, with bismarck instituting the first welfare state measures, the english radical religious reformers, and so on ..) .. the classic one, the French Revolution, may have been the most violent and led to the restoration by Napoleon; regarding so-called workers' revolutions (they weren't), again, Russia led to Stalinism, probably the worst outcome ... My preference goes to the creation of maximally autonomous communities that engage in counter-economics, and produce social charters to reconstitute politics around p2p and the commons, as the athenians and free citizens of the middle ages did. The endgame is phase transition, but not waiting until it occurs, but instituting it through hyper-connected micro-scale initiatives .. scaling through scope, until we are a social force that can play at meso and macro-scale Regarding Gordon, to explain my position. There has been a collective decision by the core members of the p2p foundation, asking me to refrain from further negative reactions, and I will abide by it. However, our position is available on the wiki for those who search and ask, we are just not spreading it actively. My associates estimated that anyone who needs to know, is already aware of the logic of the flok mgt team. I regret that Gordon is focusing on me as a person in this whole affair Why an open letter to the person who challenged the abuse, and not to those that conducted the abuse. It seems to me Gordon is focusing on the wrong person(s). Michel -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/