The Possibility of a Transnational Capitalist State

Well. . . Maybe by weight or something, there is plenty of competition out west for that special distinction.

Another way to think about this. Here's the last 1000 years in Europe:

Why would we assume that the present is the end of history?

I suppose it is worth noting the major changes to the state form in this period, from feudal/dynastic and imperial to modern capitalist nation states. Since the former were divisible and combinable by marriage and conquest, you'd expect borders to change far more frequently than they do these days, when territorial acquisition is unneccessary if you have market access. So that would be one argument for the compatiblity of nation-states and capitalism - market access not territory is the dominant logic (as land is no longer the principle source of wealth/power, capital is), so as long as states open up their markets then they can have sovereign territory.

But then a counter-argument would be that most states in the world are, if not transnational, at least multi-national, through the arbitrariness of post-colonial borders and/or via immigration. So the nation-state is actually a fleeting, transient historical form rather than the universal and timeless one it's often assumed to be. See for example the way France polices the banlieus, home to many first generation migrants and their kids, who are French citizens. The repressive policing has been described as 'post-colonial' in the double sense of the populations it terrorises and the tactics it employs.

You could also argue the US's global surveillance programs and undeclared drone wars and covert operations in Pakistan, Yemen etc suggest a more imperial-transnational form of soveriegnty than respect for national soveriegnty (which is debateable whether it ever really existed).

Argueing with urseld

Lol yeah, I'm not really sure what I think. I mean the monopoly of violence remains firmly at the level of individual states, so i'm skeptical of 'transnational state' type claims. But then various state functions have moved to a transnational level - e..g trade policy, financial regulation, and in the case of the EU, monetary policy (albeit bound up closely with national interests, particularly Germany). I guess that's why it makes sense to talk of global governance rather than global government, as there's global regulation without a central transnational authority.