why, because the message of Lordon is very simple and powerful: horizontalism does NOT created enduring social structures, because if association is totally free , people leave when their 'affects' change ...
only by introducing 'verticality', i.e. institutions, do groups who share an affect become more permanent ... this means, radical horizontalism is as illusionary as all-statism or market totalitarianism
just as challenging, Lordon maintains that globalism is impossible, as it is not possible to unite all the people under one affect, so intermediary institutions, like the nation-state, are very strong ..
he argues that other types of non-nation-state institutions, are in fact , also 'nations' of a sort, so I would conclude that the preference that we show at the p2p foundation for such institutios is indeed an effort to create a new type of 'nation', less bound by geography (except for the virtual geographies of people who share an 'affect' for shared social objects); Lordon would suggest that such new nations however, are unlike to replace the older nation-state models ...
this seems a realistic aim to me: to add a new layer of governance and institutions ...
I hope one day, I can debate this with Lordon,
--