Interesting points, but just a few comments from my perspective.

– I agree that new movements in general are very diverse, and that we are no longer in a situation of simple binary hegemony and counter-hegemony

– At the same time, peer production and its governance, does not indeed create a state

However, there are 2 counter-arguments insufficiently taken into account in theory

– First of all, the state already exists, and has existed since the dawn of civilization; while potentially, the emergence and growth of peer governance will diminish the role of state forms, this can only be a very very gradual process, with no certainty of an end point towards an evolution of no-state. Hence, it is much more likely that the state will evolve, and that since, the continuing existence of an infinite-growth capitalism is a logical and physical impossibility, the state could change from an agent of corporations reflecting the balance of social forces, to an entity that is a reflection of civil society and acts as a meta-regulator towards the 3 modes of production.

– Second, the whole work of the P2P Foundation is based on the premise that there is in fact a unifying logic to the emerging informational movements around the 3 paradigms (open/free, participatory, commons), as well as with environmental strugges against pseudo-abundance in physical production. The logic is not necessarily revolutionary, but certainly anti-systemic.

But as I said, I see it operating as changing the state, rather than abolishing it or replacing it.