Do mutualists want to reform capitalism?

From An Anarchist FAQ, Section J.3.2, What are “synthesis” federations?

Of course, there are problems involved in most forms of organisation, and the "synthesis" federation is no exception. While diversity can strengthen an organisation by provoking debate, a diverse grouping can often make it difficult to get things done. Platformist and other critics of the "synthesis" federation argue that it can be turned into a talking shop and any common programme difficult to agree, never mind apply. For example, how can mutualists and communists agree on the ends, never mind the means, their organisation supports? One believes in co-operation within a (modified) market system and reforming capitalism and statism away, while the other believes in the abolition of commodity production and money and revolution as the means of so doing. Ultimately, all they could do would be to agree to disagree and thus any joint programmes and activity would be somewhat limited.

What is reform? Improvement, right? But there's definitely a connotation of gradualism. The theory of mutualism places a great deal of emphasis on “building a new world in the shell of the old” but this idea isn't unique to mutualism. I mean, mutualism doesn't reject revolution does it? I don't mean violence, I mean revolution in a general sense. There was a previous section about Social Revolution and that seemed pretty consistent with the ideas of mutualism to me. And there was a section about how anarchists reject the idea that capitalism can be reformed. So what does that sentence mean? Is this a contradiction within the FAQ?
Am I forgetting something about the nature of mutualism? Or am I interpreting that part incorrectly?
Obviously “reform” here does not mean reform by political means.
According to the FAQ, anarchists are not against reform, (J.1.2), but they are against reformism (J.1.3)

When you get down to the nitty-gritty issue of strategies for change it starts getting kind of weird when this almighty FAQ dictates what anarchists believe on some subject, but it definitely has good points. Even if some of these things are a bit confusing. But these later sections are logical extensions of ideas expressed in previous ones, and when the ideas are controversial (such as the debate over organisation) the authors make that clear.
And the introduction of the whole FAQ states that the authors don't claim to speak for all anarchists, but that doesn't really blesh with a lot of the FAQ.

Blogged with the Flock Browser