These empirical arguments are responded to politically and normatively by renegotiating the social democratic project. What this means in practice is that Held seeks to redeploy the instruments of national, subnational and transnational democratic processes, constituted by ‘multilayered citizenship’ (and institutions through which these democratic impulses are to be realised) in the interests of casting a new compromise between state, capital and labour (ibid: 13-14) and one that meets the ethical principles of cosmopolitan democracy. Viewed from the perspective of only the last, social democratic part of this summary, David Held is clearly not an anarchist. However, if we focus on the first part of the summary, look more closely at his attempt to move beyond liberalism and Marxism, his defence of autonomy, and then the attempt to recast democracy in radically new ways, things become a little less clear. Indeed, if we take his political and theoretical argument to what I will argue to be more logical conclusions, then the defence of social democracy becomes less obviously warranted and more room is opened up for an anarchist intervention in this debate about globalisation and the polis of the future. I will argue that David Held is not an anarchist, but taking his arguments to their logical conclusions suggest he could be.'