I agree with this. I'm annoyed by most anarchist understandings of the state (and, relatedly, of hierarchy), but I don't think fetishism and "Manichean treatment" get at why they are wrong. And I certainly don't think Lennard's ideas of the state--based on a few minutes of off-the-cuff remarks, which is what we are both going on--is based on the classical anarchist position.
> than it is to a Marxism that treats the state as a
> complex of social relations intermeshed with other social and economic
> structures.
I don't see this. While most Marxisms would reject obvious base-superstructure readings of the state--though even that is a relatively recent development--they hardly see it as "intermeshed"; they still largely see it in instrumental ways. I know you like Poulantzas--and so do I, though, fuck, could he be any drier?--but he was writing *against* Marxism in this regard. He was an exception to, not a synonym for, Marxism.
> The core is dropped from Foucault's analysis, the point completely
> missed, when the 'micro-physics of power' is reduced to something that
> grasps and motivates individuals by their attitudes and feelings - as
> if it's a brainwashing (a 'coding') that could be undone by a
> subjective 'recoding'.
Well, if you see the use of "coding" as another way of saying "brainwashing," then I begin to see the problem. I assume that if she had meant brainwashing, she would have said that. But she said coding, which is a very different thing. That translation is a wickedly reductive one.
Similarly, I agree with most of the rest of your post, but I don't think you are interpreting Lennard correctly. Or maybe you are and I'm misinterpreting. But, judging by the vocabulary she uses, I don't think she holds the positions you are ascribing to her; specifically, she's not as subjectivist or individualist as the critiques you are offering here would suggest. Then again, maybe I'm being too generous in my reading.