Justin Rosenberg's criticizes theories of globalization for lacking an adequate theory of capitalism and modernity, and as a result misreading the conjuncture of the 1990s. Drawing on historical sociology and classical Marxism Rosenberg offers an alternative account, arguing that many accounts of globalization lack any historical dimension. This article comments on Rosenberg's critique, arguing that it provides a persuasive interpretation of the 1990s conjuncture by developing Marxist theory where it has often been weak, in its conception of the political. Rosenberg is less convincing in the reasons he gives for dismissing all globalization theory and its grounding in the work of non-Marxist sociologists, particularly since his own critique is not grounded in an orthodox class analysis. He also underestimates the growing importance of new forms of collective hegemony in the global economy.