In this article, Amin summarises his famous theory of "delinking", he opposes the two strategies of the underdeveloped countries: the following, catching up type of development linked with the capitalist world market and the "delinking" one, the "populist-national" strategy linked more organically with their own cultural traditions which is egalitarian in distribution. He differentiates between this latter one and socialism but states that the model "delinking" from the world economy may lead more to that than other model serving the centres of capitalism.

In this article Amin analyses the causes of the failure of "the Soviet method of production". He quotes as the most direct cause the (Stalinist) alienation from the masses of people, the cause of which in his opinion, was the Leninist economism which necessarily lead to the strategy of "catching up" with capitalism instead of "delinking" that Amin considers as would have been needed. He criticises the fact that market was not sufficiently eliminated, democracy was not enough wide spread and no power was given to the workers to control technocracy. (In this respect the author regards the Chinese model to be more successful.) He stresses that despite this, the Soviet model shows better achievements in certain fields than capitalism. He revises some thesis of the criticisms of the Soviet Union, including the wide spread ideas of "the shortage economy", "the administrative model", the "militarist society" and "totalitarianism", none of which is suitable to describe the specific features of that model.

Relying on statistical data Ross too, argues that the past few years of the world economy have been the age of decline and dramatic polarisation. Amidst growing impoverishment the performance of the "small tigers" of Asia can be considered as an exception and not the model of advancement. The Fukuyama apotheosis of liberal capitalism is just an apology denied by a multitude of fact.

Starting out from the historical facts of interdependence of Eastern and Western Europe, he takes one after the other the criteria of "being European". He joins those who stress the specific characteristics of Central Europe. He states that the realisation of the principles of socialism can only take place with the development of the European middle class socialisation and the values of Christianity. For this reason, among others, the Soviet model has proved to be a dead end.

This lecture delivered at a Paris conference in 1991 analyses – on the basis of statistical data – the trend which is described in the international literature as the arrival of the age of "post-Fordism". In the author's view, the essence of the change of system lies in the fact that – in contrast to the Keynes-Ford model -the welfare model which used to seem to guarantee both some kind of relative equality ideal and the requirement of economic progress can no longer be coherent and therefore compatible with the demands of the capital. (In harmony with Amin's article on Trans-nationalisation"), the author calls attention to the halt in growth which is a new phenomenon.