Justin Rosenberg is one of the finest social theorists currently working in International Relations. His long article on globalization lives up to this billing — it is a stellar example of what a finely tuned historical sociology can add to the discipline. However, in three crucial ways, Rosenberg's critique misses its target. First, by focusing on the structural dimensions of world historical development, Rosenberg's analysis is infused with a reductionism that loses touch with the uncertainty, indeterminacy and, most crucially, the agency that lies at the heart of processes of large-scale change. Second, by, at least in part, concentrating on easy targets — particularly liberal globalization theory — Rosenberg misses elements of the study of globalization that are both empirically insightful and theoretically noteworthy. Third, for all its theoretical prowess and force, Rosenberg's post-mortem of globalization theory is premature. The age of globalization — as theory, practice and normative discourse — is far from dead. In fact, Rosenberg is performing the last rites on a term, concept and approach that remains in robust health.