>I don't see anything defeatist about the argument for reassessing the Left's
>traditional defense of government. A certain "decentering" of the state
>seems to be a legitimate task for the democratic socialist left. This
>decentering does not signify a departure from the question of state power,
>but extends the project of politics beyond the terrain of the state to every
>possible frontier of the social space. To me, this seems to be a valid
>extension of the Gramscian project of counter-hegemony, the radical
>construction of an alternative civil society.
Except that in the case of the United States, most functions of government were already too decentralized to begin with (e.g., states' rights in service of racism). And in the age of neoliberal attacks on social programs, the trend has been further down the path of devolution, of which the end to AFDC & the institution of TANF is a part. On the other hand, economic management of capitalism has become further centralized (from legislatures to central banks, from Keynesian states to international institutions, from poor nations to rich ones, etc.). The federal government has meanwhile acquired further policing power (here & abroad), blurring the distinctions between the military, the national guards, and the police, fighting the wars on drug, crime, and terrorism. And while social programs have become un- or underfunded, citizens have been hectored by slimy politicos, officious journalists, & naive academics to become more civic-minded, donate more to charities, volunteer more often, etc.
At the same time, the U.S. Left (broadly defined) has been quite decentralized as well: a flowering of micropolitics of all varieties (and micro-politicking _within_ micro-orgs, too -- yikes!), but neither a coherent program nor real political power. Many of them had already adapted themselves to the post-Carter status quo ("Habitat for Inhumanity"!), moving to the right, even without Ehrenreich's advice.
Given this reality, I doubt that further "decentering" is the way to go.
BTW, Gramsci, I don't think, was adovocating an oppositional project of "counter-hegemony" (first of all, I don't recall Gramsci using the term "counter-hegemony"). He was, even in prison, thinking of how the Communist Party (the "Modern Prince") might become an organizing instrument (politically & culturally) for communist hegemony.
Yoshie