Ian Taylor challenges the concepts of a transnational capitalist class (TCC) and state, suggesting that Poulantzas’s notion of the “internal bourgeoisie” is a better theoretical starting point for the analysis of transnational class formation and that the transnational state (TNS) is a step too far. This critique is not convincing. It is debatable to what extent it is a “Poulantzian reading.” The rejection of the notion of a TCC is unsustainable because of compelling evidence for the existence of such a class with articulated shared interests and organizations tasked with pursuing them. The critique of the TNS has some validity, but largely because proponents of the concept have been insufficiently clear on the consequences of upscaling the state concept to the global level. When this is acknowledged, the relevance and usefulness of the concept is that it enables state theoretical analysis of demonstrably existing TNS apparatuses that perform TNS functions, shaped by transnational relations of power between social forces, involving both structural power and direct engagement in transnational sites of contestation. There are now transnational elements of all fundamental characteristics of the capitalist state except one, the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Finally, Taylor does not provide an alternative approach to theorizing what descriptively is known as global governance.

中文翻译：

---

为什么是跨国阶级和国家？对伊恩泰勒的回应

伊恩泰勒挑战跨国资产阶级（TCC）和国家的概念，认为普兰查斯的“内部资产阶级”概念是分析跨国阶级形成的更好的理论起点，跨国国家（TNS）是一个步骤太远。这种批评没有说服力。它在多大程度上是“Poulantzian 阅读”是有争议的。拒绝 TCC 的概念是不可持续的，因为有令人信服的证据表明存在这样一个具有明确的共同利益和负责追求这些利益的组织的阶级。对 TNS 的批评有一定的道理，但主要是因为该概念的支持者对将国家概念升级到全球层面的后果还不够清楚。当这一点得到承认时，该概念的相关性和实用性在于，它能够对明显存在的 TNS 机构进行国家理论分析，这些机构执行 TNS 功能，由社会力量之间的跨国权力关系塑造，涉及结构性权力和跨国竞争场所的直接参与。现在，资本主义国家的所有基本特征都具有跨国因素，除了一个，即对合法使用暴力的垄断。最后，泰勒没有提供另一种方法来理论化所谓的全球治理。涉及结构性权力和直接参与跨国竞争场所。现在，资本主义国家的所有基本特征都具有跨国因素，除了一个，即对合法使用暴力的垄断。最后，泰勒没有提供另一种方法来理论化所谓的全球治理。涉及结构性权力和直接参与跨国竞争场所。现在，资本主义国家的所有基本特征都具有跨国因素，除了一个，即对合法使用暴力的垄断。最后，泰勒没有提供另一种方法来理论化所谓的全球治理。