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 lecture Arrighi gave in 1939, he provides a very thorough analysis of the idea of "semi-periphery". He questions the frequently quoted connection by which the level of development would be equivalent with the level of industrialisation. He interprets the latest stage of industrialisation as the shift of industry to the periphery and not as a peripheral development. He challenges the idea that unequal exchange would be the main basis of the economic power of the centre. In this process, the placement of capital and labour is more decisive. He puts forward the theory that this economy is based on the double nature of exploitation and exclusion and if a peripheral country fights against one of the two, then it is to lead to the trap of the other in most cases. Catching up is an illusion for the majority because the advantages they want to reach originate from the very fact that others are subordinated to exclusion and exploitation. Analysing the most different regions of the world, he states that on the scale of periphery-semi-periphery-periphery the up or down movement is exceptional. He opposes the anti-system and pro-system semi-periphery which despite the failure of the "anti-system" socialism is mostly more disadvantageous for the pro-system semi-periphery.

This social philosophical analysis started out from the questioning of the existence of classes. He differentiates between and juxtaposes the "economic" and "social" approaches to class relations and analyses the mistaken alternative which has taken the dual tradition of economist (social democratic) and overpoliticised (Leninist) form. He re-formulates the Marxist thesis that class is a sensible category only as a relationship and states that the idea of the working class is inseparable from the presence of the workers,' movement. From this he deducts the thesis the "class party" is contradictory in itself. He too, considers as the essence of modern capitalism the fact that it exists as a world system, as the division of the different societies on the basis of their development is a basic precondition of the reproduction of capital. As a consequence, he denies the existence of "world bourgeoisie" and "world proletariat", as even the struggle of interests in the world system is waged in the form of the struggle of nations.

The author undertakes the task of pin-pointing the contradictions of Wallerstein's capitalism-idea with special regard to that aspect which can be found in his advancement concept by which he measures progress with the decrease in the level of exploitation. (This is just the opposite of the process which in fact, has taken place in history). In contrast to Wallerstein (and in harmony with Marx), the author argues that capitalism – although it has increased exploitation – has represented advancement in every respect, at the same time creating the conditions of going beyond it. Zalai expresses his doubts whether the centre-periphery relationship truly increases impoverishment and whether the impact of the centre to pull should not be taken into account with the same weigh.

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.