While modernity theory promised a break-out from poverty, dependency theories described the history of polarisations. The semi-periphery concept of the world systems analysis has been established as partial denial of both, characterising areas of labour division in between the capital and labour intense regions. According to the author, the world systems analysis is underestimating the importance of class struggle in production. Socialists are unable to step up with a feasible alternative to capitalism, because they have accepted that politics and the state exist separately from the material existence of the society. Critical analysis should focus on class struggle, and have to leave the illusion that relationships between the centre and periphery are determining the fundamental dynamism of global capitalism.

What is the reason behind the fact that attempts to overcome capitalism almost exclusively originated in the semi-periphery, neither in the centre nor in the periphery, asks the author adding this important aspect to the semi-periphery debate. The answer hides in the unequal development. However, transcending capitalism, so far, was proven to be unresolved without equal development.

"He is writing his plebeian demagogy on an abstract Ubbi Dubbi language" said one of the critics of György Lukács. The present article is an attempt to make clear the "demagogy" of Lukács.

This issue is featured with variety. From time to time, it is an important task of Eszmélet to address the question: "what comes after capitalism?" A well-known Russian author presents that corruption is an integral part of capitalism in East-Europe and in the world. This system cannot get rid of corruption, based on objective reasons and invariably to the depth of its crisis. We have to prepare ourselves to be able to understand the new developments of world systems that put in the focus the renewed debate on the essence of semi-periphery.  Analysing this problem also helps to suggest effective anti-capitalist strategies in the different regions of the system. We also address again the baseline question: "what is the communist project after the collapse of state socialism and in the new economic crisis of capitalism?" Is the crisis inducing the existence of economic forms that point beyond the market economy based mode of production or this kind of questions indicate political infantilism? Ignoring the internal link between liberalism and fascism can be such a mistake that was pointed put by György Lukács decades ago – his heritage is still actual and relevant. One of our articles examines what happened to trade unions in Europe in the decades ruled by neoliberalism. Its "prehistory" should also be cleared: "what were the reasons lying behind the emergence of eurocommunism?" The lesson still should be drawn