Well, I think you've made a total balls up in characterising my view. Reformists try to change the state through the institution of the state. You're proposing we destroy the state by replacing it with a supposedly better state. I say we spread the message that the state isn't real and that it's just us being cultured against each other. How you can even pretend to say my view is anything like a liberal reformist is bizarre. The methods of both violent proletariat revolution and liberal reformation are both fundamentally flawed even in principle.
The reason violent usurpation would fail as much as the current standard of statism is because they both fail to recognise the moral importance of consent. I don't really see how peaceful revolution is any less likely than a violent one. You say we require a global class consciousness in order to usurp the ruling elite (and thus become the ruling elite and actively repress the bourgeois.). I say we require a global class consciousness in order to recognise the prisoner's dilemma we're in and thus recognise that the alleged private property of the elite isn't legitimate (and therefore isn't their private property anymore). Yours is premature and hypocritical (hence a waste of time).