I replied in between lines:

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'.

I understand the above and agree. In this sense I can admit being meliorist as well, yet my end goal can be different. With the reformist charge, I meant it can come by those preferring to use the old lexicon. From there your approach to partner state, and transformation of the state and transition to capitalism without indefinite growth engine [as Hilary Wainwright's 're-claiming the state' argument, or Tomasso's commonification of public services can be seen as 'radical democratic reformism']. I however liked to highlight that both theoretical, practical and techno-political advancements in the fields of p2p, commons,... etc. has given James' understanding of meliorism a new aspect. Today, you can in real time collaborate with agency that would in the past seemed opponent to you politically; like Phorudon and Marx (anarchism vs communism), Lasal and Spartakists as well as Lenin and Kautsky (Socialism vs. Social Democracy), as well as all the following generations of left and progressive fracitonalism. This made possible for capitalism to assert itself as an irreversible and immortal historical structure.

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 ...

I see there are inevitable points of revolutionary confrontation both from above and from below, during the period like today; where crisis moments following molecular changes escalate as you describe, and there comes the point where conflicting class forces see no other way than violent engagement, thereafter winner takes it all and we jump to a new level of balance of forces (like quantitative changes come to a point of qualitative jump). What is the key in both times of revolution from above and revolution from below, both opens up portals for emancipatory intervention. In case there are visions and working communities on which figurative models can take clear ad broader form (like Occupy camps) so can be grasped and participated by larger segments of the society; so that further ideas, plans, programs and visions can be produced in a participatory and collaborative way [on how to deal with inevitable problems with holding and distributing social power, regulating social conflicts in egalitarian and just way etc.] emancipatory push would grow and it would inevitable trigger violence from rulers, unless it is unbearable clear that the mass is so big and decisive and they wouldn't stop. That is revolution to me, and inevitable. For instance during the Arab spring, Occupy, 15M, Gezi, Brazilian uprising, we felt deeply -not the absence of these practises and experience but- the absence of elaborated communicatable structures that can interlink existing local, national, global experiences, perspectives so on. FLOK's value in this sense, lies in the fact that it bears insights about a national level example which was worked about in relation to a state.

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

about the above, that is really inspiring to see those communities like CIC, and CoopFunding and so important to support them in every way. so such communities, visions, experiments do not exist in the rural alone, as Holloway wrote there is a Zapatismo urbano growing, connect autonomies in the urban areas ans there is movement from urban to the rural.. In most of the cases, hacker class is approaching to workers and farmers. Like the Interference space will take place in amsterdam, sub-altern classes are gaining consciousness -some thing like 'we can hack the class-society'. As in case of Enric Duran, and CIC, guerlilla translation, telekommunisten, las indias, gunion .. we witness disobedient egalitarian ethical emancipatory innovations produced by rank and file class members. This is the workshop we are going to held in Interferance mid august: https://interference.io/wiki/doku.php?id=sessions:gnunion_global_networked_l... so I like to stress again: as long as we are doing trans-level and multi-dimentional practice of community/network building and interlinking work (allowing empowerment of ourselves and all the nodes simultaneously), it does not matter that much what we have as personal visions, preferences, expectations, predictions, so on.. about the future and nature of transition. The previous organisational forms, like part, platform, block, front, did not allow such collaborative and egaliterian ethical alliances. Now it is more possible then before, not perfectly smooth of course. With the 'quantum-logic' I was reffering this new possibility. This is an outcome of the technological-communicational paradigm shift, and at the moment it works for the advantage of the ruled, yet it might not last long.