When Althusser distinguished between the public, state-operated mechanisms of social repression and the private, civil-society-operated mechanisms, he noted the following:

"Whereas the [public] (Repressive) State Apparatus constitutes an organized whole whose different parts are centralized beneath a commanding unity,... the [private] Ideological State Apparatuses are multiple, distinct, 'relatively autonomous'" Louis Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses"

As I was digesting this, I was reminded of Hardt and Negri's recent book Multitude (the term is Spinoza's) in which the Many cannot be reduced to a politically convenient One. So here is the anomaly: If the peer-to-peer structure is the mechanism for network culture, and it cannot be implemented as a State Apparatus, then it seems to follow that we end up with (here it comes) panarchy. Moreover, Althusser also observed that from feudal times to the industrial era, the multiplicity of forms of the private apparatuses was increasing. This notion dovetails perfectly with panarchy as an outcome of the unprecedented proliferation of opportunities and mechanisms for social governance, i.e. peer-to-peer (network) culture.