This article continues a sequence taken from a book, Liberating Theory, published forty years ago. Its seven co-authors felt that a successful left in the U.S. needed what some of us called a shared conceptual toolbox for conceiving, judging, and enacting strategy and vision suitable to win fundamental change in our future. We sought to combine insights from various movements and perspectives in a useful way. This article excerpts with some added comments it’s chapter four which addressed economics. 

It began like this: Special care must be taken in modifying existing radical economic theory to avoid incorporating biases that would prove detrimental to Liberating Theory’s complementary holist approach. We thus begin our analysis by presenting some adaptations of familiar Marxist ideas.  

Economics certainly involves the production, consumption, and allocation of material objects and activists need to understand how the transformation of “raw materials” into “intermediate” and “final” products and the distribution of those products affect material outcomes. But economics also affects people as they engage in different kinds of economic activities. Our personalities, skills, consciousnesses, and relations with others and transform as we repeatedly engage in economic activities. 

Change a person’s role in the economy—for example, from capitalist to worker—and you will change many of the social pressures (and benefits) that mold his/her life. Change the economic system from feudal to capitalist, for instance—and you will change the pattern of roles and economic circumstances facing everyone. Economic activity affects the qualitative human dimensions as well as the quantitative material dimensions of life. It affects social relations and people as well as things. A first priority in a complementary holist approach has to be to include personality, skill, knowledge, consciousness, and different kinds of qualitative social relationships as central economic concepts.

One way of thinking about how economic activity transforms objects, people, and the relations between people is to think of that activity as consuming various inputs and producing various outputs. When we focus on the outputs we call the activity production and when we focus on the inputs we call it consumption.

When we produce an automobile, we address the car as product. But when we consume a car we address at the same commodity not as a product but as a means of a kind of consumption we call travel. In other words, “production” and “consumption” are just two different views of any economic activity, since all economic activity both consumes inputs and produces outputs. Even when we travel, for example, we certainly consume fuel, the labors of airplane pilots, etc., and we also produce the transport of ourselves to new locales, our changed states of mind, pollution, and so on.

To take the auto example further: in automobile production steel, rubber, human energy, skills, and personality traits are all consumed as inputs, while automobiles, pollution, and exhausted workers (with certain traits either reinforced or transformed) are produced as outputs. Likewise, in automobile consumption the new car is consumed as an input and a used car is produced as an output, but the user’s status in his/her neighbors’ eyes—a social relationship—is also enhanced or diminished (depending on the kind of car and neighbors.)

The point is that in both what we call production and consumption, material, human, and social inputs are consumed and material, human, and social outputs are produced. For activists it is particularly critical that we incorporate in our conceptual framework means to highlight the human and social inputs and outputs of both production and consumption activity.

Because economic institutions define what kinds of economic activity will and will not take place, and because the economic activity we engage in affects our personality, skills, and consciousness, economic institutions profoundly affect society’s social and psychological patterns as well as its material possibilities. Economic institutions also affect the needs or preferences people will develop and the productive skills they will learn. A useful set of economic concepts must therefore direct us to ask: how does market exchange influence consumer personalities and preferences? How do markets influence the structure of workplaces, and vice versa? How would central planning change consumers’ or workers’ roles? And what are the human effects of social relations within each workplace? A useful conceptualization must not presuppose the inevitability or neutrality of any particular set of economic institutions, but explore the particular human developmental effects of every set of economic institutions it examines.

All but the most lackluster economies can generate more material outputs than necessary to 1) replace the produced material inputs used, and 2) house, feed, and clothe those engaged in economic activity. Though the measurement of this “material surplus” or “net product” is inevitably somewhat imprecise, it is nonetheless an important concept. And a useful economic theory should identify all factors that influence the size and distribution of this net product to different classes and sectors within classes. We therefore need economic variables sensitive to how and why capitalists, professionals, managers, and workers receive different incomes; why workers earn different wages depending on their occupation, union status, race, skills, and sex; and why capitalists receive different profits depending on the kinds of competition they face and the character of their work force. It will not do to employ concepts that minimize these differences as if they had only insignificant effects.

Classes are groups of people who share sufficiently similar economic circumstances to have common interests and the potential to recognize and act on those common interests as collective agents. Many factors can help make a group a class, including sharing the same relationship of ownership or non-ownership to different types of property, or holding different positions in hierarchies of power. But we must additionally highlight that qualitative factors can also help define classes whenever people do similar enough work with similar enough relations to others so they typically evolve shared perspectives and desires. It isn’t simply ownership, or power, or any other single factor that creates a class but a combination of factors that causes similarities in world view and interests. We can’t a priori say what all the relevant factors will be for all types of economy. We must investigate. Capitalists, for example, are a class not only because they own means of production or exert control over investments, but because they share similar qualitative circumstances regarding their overall roles and relations to others in the economy.

The “most important” classes in any economy are those that have the potential to dominate economic decisions, appropriate the greatest part of the material surplus, and monopolize the most desirable economic roles for themselves. In other words, the most important classes in an economy are those that are already or have the potential to become a “ruling class.” Marxists additionally assume that the most important ruling group in any society must be its ruling class. We reject this presumption but without rejecting the concept “ruling class” since it is perfectly possible for a class to dominate the economic sphere (making it a ruling class), yet be subordinate to another social group defined principally by political, community, or kinship characteristics. Of course it is also possible that of all the dominant groups in a society the ruling class is the most important or that group hierarchies within a society vary in importance depending on the focus of concern. But, in any case, we insist that these are matters that can only be settled by empirical investigation of particular societies. No social theory can provide us advance knowledge as to which, if any, elite will dominate the others.

In any event, once we recognize that economic activity affects personality, consciousness, and capabilities; once we recognize that control of the use of the means of production can be as critical or more critical than ownership; once we recognize that a monopoly of information can form the basis of a class’s economic power just as a monopoly of ownership or a monopoly of skills can; we are able to see a new “class map” of capitalist and existing post-capitalist societies. In addition to the capitalist and working classes we see an important third “coordinator” class in modern economies.

In our view, modern economies of both capitalist and post capitalist varieties, have spawned a new class of managers, technocrats, and professionals who compete for control over economic activity and its benefits. Since we feel this class comes from, but is much smaller than the growing stratum of “mental workers” in modern economies we call it the coordinator class to distinguish it from the larger stratum that would include elementary school teachers as well as tenured professors, engineers of all kinds, and nurses as well as hospital administrators and doctors. In economies where the capitalist class still dominates, the coordinator class has antagonistic interests with capitalists who are their most frequent employers. Coordinators seek ever more autonomy from capitalist supervision as well as growing shares of the surplus. But in such societies the coordinator class also has antagonistic interests with the working class whose activities it largely directs and “coordinates.” Coordinators seek to reproduce the dependence of workers on experts and the coordinators’ own relative monopoly on expertise. In countries where private ownership of the means of production has been largely superseded by state ownership, coordinators are the only specifically economic elite, the new ruling class, but they frequently divide into two “fractions”—the local managers with their supervisory and technical staffs, and the central planners with their staffs of bureaucrats and experts—which vie with one another as well as with workers and non-economic elites for economic power.

I interject from 2026: As with the previous two chapters, regarding this one’s concepts, too, the past forty years have not been silent. As I read this material, for example, I am surprised at the distinction it offers between what it calls “mental workers” and the coordinator class. I admit that I do not remember for sure, but my guess is that some of the seven of us, assessing this chapter, wanted some way to distinguish between what they saw as seriously empowered from only a bit empowered employees by calling the former a coordinator class between labor and capital, and calling the latter just a part of all workers. For myself, I question how useful it is to delineate this conceptual borderline as compared to simply saying there are disempowered and empowered employees, some more or less so than others. This is rather like that there are large and small scale owners, unionized and non-unionized factory and farm workers, and so on. I won’t repeatedly address where we should draw such lines in further interjections, but will instead let the book speak for itself.

The chapter continued: We feel that if a “class theory” is to be useful in studying modern economies it is critical that it recognize the existence of a “coordinator class” (regardless of what name is chosen), and emphasize the importance of its interrelations with capitalists, workers, and non-economic elites as well as the broader stratum of conceptual workers lodged between coordinators and workers. A class theory that hides the power of this major economic group by classifying it as the petit bourgeoisie; or a class theory that minimizes the conflicting interests of coordinators and workers by lumping coordinators into the “new working class” (or labor aristocracy), will obscure critical class relations and cause programs to serve coordinator rather than worker aims.

Lastly, a complementary holist approach to the economy emphasizes that all economies exist within societies containing other important social structures, and that therefore economies are necessarily textured by “forces” emanating from other spheres. As Nancy Hartsock says, “Class distinctions in capitalist society are part of a totality, a mode of life which is structured as well by the traditions of patriarchy and white supremacy. Class distinctions in the United States affect the everyday lives of women and men, white and black and Third World people in different ways.”

It follows that an economy of a particular type would not function the same way if it interacts with a racist community sphere instead of a non-racist one or exists in a patriarchal setting instead of a non patriarchal one. An example that has been more frequently debated by Marxists is the difference between “parliamentary capitalism” and “fascist capitalism.” But what has eluded participants in these debates is that not only are the political spheres different in “parliamentary” and “fascist” capitalism, but the “capitalist” economies differ as well. In other words, an abstract theory of capitalist (or coordinator) dynamics, should not be confused with concrete economic theory relevant to a particular social setting. An economic theory relevant to a racist, sexist, capitalist economy, for example, must contain concepts that “track” the effects of “fields of force” emanating from outside the economy, but acting within it just as surely as capitalist dynamics do. In this kind of economy a “sex-blind” and “race-blind” theory of distribution of the social surplus or of job-types would also be “blind” to many important economic dynamics and forms of economic oppression including the qualitative subordination of women and minorities in jobs that are not only underpaid, but whose role definitions reproduce sexist and racist ideology. We need more encompassing concepts.

The points surveyed above are intended as important correctives to Marxist economic theory. We take great pains to insulate our complementary holist analysis from the failings of Marxism for two reasons. First, the effects of Marxism on activist thought are so powerful that it influences almost all progressive theory and practice, frequently in ways of which we are unaware. Second, the failures of Marxism go beyond the problem of monist exaggeration of one sphere’s sway, since in addition the economy itself is misunderstood. Before presenting the outlines of our analysis of capitalism, we summarize the major deficiencies of Marxist economic theory.

As a monist economic theory Marxism too often exaggerates the importance of economics and minimizes the importance of other spheres of social life to the point of being “economistic.” This economism takes the form of underestimating the importance of non-economic forms of domination, incorrectly reducing those forms of domination to economic roots, and failing to recognize how community, gender, and political dynamics have powerful effects even on defining economic structures. Marxists are right to emphasize the immense importance of economic dynamics and the critical role classes have played in history. But just as with nationalism and feminism, to jump from these insights to a monist formulation is unjustifiable and debilitating.

But more than this, Marxist economic theory fails to provide conceptual categories that help us discover how different kinds of economic activity have different effects on the development of human characteristics and needs. This omission not only devastates our ability to evaluate different economic institutions, it debilitates our ability to analyze some of the most important dynamics that influence social stability and change. In its fixation on the material, quantitative aspects of economic activity, Marxism too often ignores the human, qualitative aspects. Or, put differently, Marxist economics has never become a theory of economic “praxis”—we do not live by or for bread alone.

Lastly, Marxist class theory obscures even the existence of one of the most important classes in modern economies. Based on a monopoly of technical and organizational knowledge, a class which conceptualizes, coordinates, and oversees the economic tasks that others execute has come to vie for economic power with both the capitalist and working class in modern economies. Despite its many other accomplishments, that Marxism ignores this fact denies it even the accolade, “at least it provides a sufficient basis for understanding abstract economies.”

I interject: The above observation was relevant forty years ago and regrettably it remains relevant today too to how to conceive truly classless economic change, how to conceive and win short run economic gains that lead toward that classless vision, and how to understand the views and aspirations of economic actors’ current allegiances. 

The chapter continues: In capitalism we see that there are three important classes who share unequally in the burdens and benefits of socially organized economic activity. Capitalists own the means of production, hire workers and coordinators, and appropriate a large share of the economy’s net product as profits. Coordinators—including senior managers, engineers, lawyers, civil servants in various economic ministries, and high-ranking tenured university professors—monopolize valued knowledge to hold conceptual jobs at high salaries that have considerable decision-making authority over their own and others’ work. 

I interject, the list of coordinators the seven authors settled on, I don’t remember any discussions, but I suspect there were differences and compromises. For example, the absence of doctors, accountants, and, for that matter people with so much bargaining power that they identify as “above workers,” and thus as coordinators, is striking. On the other hand, if that was a difference we had then, where should we stand on this issue now?

The chapter continues: Coordinators receive part of the net product as high salaries and vie with capitalists over how an even larger part of the social surplus will be invested. In contrast, members of the working class sell their labor power for the best wage they can find, have little say over how their capacities will be utilized, and execute tasks conceived by others. It has not proved impossible for workers to gain part of the social surplus they alone produce. After all, many working classes have succeeded in their battles for higher than subsistence wages. But even under the most advantageous conditions workers receive, on average, a far smaller share of society’s net product than capitalists and coordinators.

Moreover, not all actors in capitalist economies occupy positions within only one well-defined class. For example, between workers and coordinators there is what we call a “professional and managerial stratum” including teachers, welfare workers, nurses, technicians, and others—in short, most of the so-called “educated middle class.” These folks have facets of their economic roles in common with coordinators—their high levels of schooling, and roles consisting largely of conceptual tasks. But they also have much in common with workers—the low wages they often receive and their lack of decision-making power.

Everyone in capitalism participates in market exchange. As buyers everyone seeks the lowest prices to buy at. As sellers everyone seeks the highest prices to sell at. But what the different classes buy and sell, and the degree to which they are able to influence the amounts they pay and receive, are very different.

Capitalists buy material inputs and labor power and sell the products the workers make to consumers in pursuit of as much profit as possible. Workers (and most coordinators) sell their labor power for a wage with which they buy their means of subsistence, seeking to improve their living conditions. To maximize profits, capitalists organize their work places and situate their companies in various markets very carefully. They try to get as much product from as little input as possible. They keep their work force disciplined and weak to keep productivity high and wages low. And they compete for position in various product markets to increase their monopoly power. Workers, coordinators, and middle strata members all seek to negotiate the highest wages they can and to buy products at the lowest possible prices. But in attempting to improve their negotiating position with their capitalist employers, coordinators and middle strata employees often try to expand their monopoly of knowledge and authority over production and exchange—largely at the expense of workers over whom they enjoy relative advantages.

Market exchange is a matter of bargaining power. Those who have more power extort higher payments for what they sell and/or compel lower prices for what they buy. Other things being equal, the greater the degree of monopoly in an industry the higher the prices the capitalists in that industry will be able to charge. Large corporate customers are also more likely to be able to extract special pricing policies, payment schedules, or service contracts from their suppliers. Similarly, if workers negotiate as a unit, through a union, instead of individually, they can increase their bargaining power. Or if an employer cannot easily withstand a strike because competitors would steal away his customers, workers can win higher wages.

Capitalists buy their workers’ labor power or ability to do work. They must then extract as much actual work as possible during the work day. This means they must structure the work process and job-promotion system in ways that cajole, entice, or coerce as much work as possible while ensuring that the work force goes home at the end of each shift disinclined to demand better working conditions or increases in pay. The coordinators and middle strata employees play an important role in this on-going contest. As organizers, directors, and supervisors of the work process, coordinators attempt to keep workers sufficiently uninformed and divided to prevent them from effectively reorganizing their work efforts and renegotiating their rewards more to their advantage. Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis point out: “Organizing production hierarchically and fragmenting tasks divides the workers on different levels against one another and reduces the independent range of control for each. Both of these weaken the solidarity (and hence limit the group power) of workers and serve to convince them, through their day-to-day activities, of their personal incapacity to control, or even of the technical infeasibility of such control.”

But it is not only capitalists’ power that is advanced by such structures. Coordinator interests are served as well, and directly at the expense of workers. Many factors affect bargaining power, and no simple equation determines how prices, wages, and profits will evolve in all settings. For example, in times of rising unemployment and fear of job loss, workers are less willing to take risks, but when there are tight labor markets employers are put in a position of not knowing if they will be able to find replacements. Increasing unemployment therefore “disciplines” the work force and leads to greater productivity and profits. Decreasing unemployment, on the other hand, strengthens workers and allows them to consider job actions and strikes. But what if some of the edge is taken off unemployment so the unemployed are not so desperate to take jobs and the employed not so afraid of getting a pink slip?

For example, if unemployment compensation is quickly forthcoming with a minimum of bureaucratic annoyance, and if quality public health care has rendered employment-linked medical insurance unnecessary, and if the welfare and public housing systems available to the unemployed are adequate and non-degrading, the plight of the unemployed isn’t so desperate. Indeed, many unemployed workers might then refuse to take a demeaning job or low wages in pursuit of work. And those who have jobs might not be so fearful to succumb to threats aimed at extracting “give back” concessions in contract negotiations. In such circumstances the link between unemployment, productivity, and wages would be greatly weakened.

Through this kind of analysis we can see how struggles over the “social wage”—or general level of support guaranteed all members of society through welfare, housing, food, health care and other social service programs—is a fight over the relative bargaining power of workers and capitalists as well as a “moral” question of what society is willing to guarantee its most exploited members. When the social wage strengthens workers so they cannot easily be disciplined by a dose of unemployment, capitalists naturally seek to revoke the social programs that threaten their power. By this brief description, we begin to see the efficacy of class analysis and the importance of paying attention to the interconnection of different trends and the multiplicity of factors that can affect bargaining powers.

But other important factors also influence the pattern of wages and prices. Not only do capitalists seek to enlarge profits and workers to increase wages and improve working conditions, professionals, managers, and especially coordinators also try to increase their incomes and the power they can exert over economic decisions. Sometimes professionals and managers seek to improve their circumstances by individually trying to improve their standing with employers, colluding, sometimes even against other coordinators. Other times they collectively seek to increase the status and legitimacy afforded to the possession of intellectual skills in society. Professional associations and formal accreditation systems are among the collective mechanisms managers and professionals employ to enhance their power. 

Moreover, the situation of different economic actors can vary from industry to industry or region to region as unemployment rates, levels of unionization, or the plight of the unemployed vary. Capitalist economies are giant wars in which participants try to win advantages by exerting whatever individual or collective bargaining power they can muster. Basic class relationships texture the entire battlefield with the capitalists occupying all the highest ground. But conditions vary from place to place as well, and many factors texture outcomes. Different industries have different degrees of concentration, are more or less unionized, more or less able to withstand strikes, and more or less able to threaten to pack up and move elsewhere. Likewise, different regions of a country or different sectors of a work force may have different levels of bargaining power. Unionization is an obvious factor, but skill levels and social relations rooted outside the economy are also important.

For example, because of the special characteristics of the sale of labor power, the capitalist has an interest in keeping the work force weak and divided. This is accomplished by a variety of means including socially and technologically structuring the workplace to minimize worker knowledge and solidarity. In addition, if groups of workers come to a plant with hostilities rooted in relationships beyond the factory door, it will obviously benefit the capitalist to perpetuate and aggravate these hostilities so energies which might have gone to increasing worker solidarity and bargaining power will instead be focused on intra-worker competition.

And the effects of social divisions from other spheres are not limited to distribution of the material surplus. Job definitions may be influenced so a racial or sexual division of labor causes job roles to differ depending on whether slots are filled by men, women, whites, or members of oppressed communities. Therefore in a racist, sexist society the workplace will not only be fragmented along class lines, but along race and gender lines as well.

Similarly, class consciousness varies depending on the mix of the four spheres in the whole social formation—a matter we will address further in later chapters. The point is that social divisions derived from other spheres have a qualitative as well as quantitative impact on the functioning of a capitalist economy. Income distribution in capitalist economies is determined by the pattern of wages, prices, and profits. Each of these, in turn, depends on the relative bargaining strengths of particular buyers and sellers. Many factors affect these relative strengths including, as we have begun to enumerate, class division, unionization, industrial concentration, employment levels and patterns, the social wage, consumer organization and consciousness, racism, and sexism. On the qualitative side, economic roles and relationships are defined by the class structure of capitalism and by social divisions from other spheres as well. Hence people’s attitudes toward how the economy functions and what kinds of alterations they would like to see are influenced by the mixture of class and non-class roles they occupy. In a particular society we can see both quantitative and qualitative trends, and postulate likely implications of particular policies. But the idea that within capitalism a few critical economic relations and simple laws of motion govern, is simply wrong. Even the most straightforward relations are always historical and subject to change.

Given all the above, it follows that we accept the Marxist recognition that class struggle exists in capitalist workplaces and market arenas. We accept that capitalists compete for profits and that the capitalist economic system revolves around the accumulation process. We accept that capitalists make social and technological investment decisions in their plants and in society as a whole with an eye toward reproducing their own relative advantages. As a result, for example, we see capitalists are more likely to expand society’s war-making capacities than to improve living conditions for workers since building tanks enhances their international bargaining power while building livable housing for the poor would increase workers’ bargaining power at home. Even though both forms of investment would return profits, capitalists will certainly prefer the former.

But beyond those agreed points, for us class struggle is a more complicated, tri-polar struggle in modern capitalist economies involving coordinators and a middle strata in addition to capitalists and workers. And in contrast to Marxists, we see that wages, prices, and profits depend on a multiplicity of factors that determine the pattern of relative bargaining strengths between the different actors in a capitalist economy. Moreover, we highlight that the influence of other social spheres on the economy is critical because we recognize that forces emanating from outside the economy help define economic roles and influence economic decisions within it, a phenomenon we will study further in later chapters.

Our economic analysis also focuses more on the qualitative aspects of economic activity—how it is that the organization of work and consumption under capitalism affects the pattern of human development and the reproduction or disruption of social relationships. The situations of traditional workers, capitalists, coordinators, and those in the middle strata are all different. As a result, a representative individual of each type, on average, has a different perspective on their economic role in society, prospects, and interests. This explains why we designate such people members of different classes.

Moreover, the interface between these groups and the patterns of consciousness that result are much more complicated than traditional Marxism recognizes. For example, workers interact face-to-face far less with capitalists than with middle strata workers or coordinators. It is therefore not surprising that much of workers’ hostility is directed at these intermediate groups instead of at capitalists; for example, working class antipathy for doctors, lawyers, and ideologies identified with “intellectuals.” It is also important to recognize that members of the middle strata share many interests with traditional workers but frequently aspire to coordinator status; for example, teachers or nurses debating over unionizing or striking—questioning whether to behave in accord with the working class aspects of their situation or according to coordinator aspirations. 

Recognizing the complexity of class dynamics as well as the importance of racial and sexual dynamics at work within the economy makes all the more important the tasks of theorizing the “human,” “psychological,” and “qualitative” side of economic relations. And we also must recognize that though classes are born in the organization of economic activity, class life extends beyond the factory and market. Classes develop extra-economic characteristics such as shared tastes in music, sports, restaurants, bars, clothes, etc. To recognize that class is economically rooted is not to deny that capitalists, workers, and coordinators also develop cultural, aesthetic, and even spiritual characteristics that deserve attention. “Yuppies” may be thought of as a particular subset of the coordinator class. Blue and white collar workers are subsets of the working class.

The different roles assigned by the modern capitalist organization of production are not the only capitalist roles that have significant effects on how peoples’ characteristics and needs develop. Markets compel actors to function individually and anti-socially, without taking account of the well-being of the producers who make what one purchases or the consumers who purchase what one produces. Markets make people competitive, individualistic in the anti-social sense of the word, and materialistic. We see the dollar-worth of everything but lose track of social relations and human costs and benefits to others.

We cannot overemphasize the importance of these facts for life in capitalist economies. Our personalities and tastes depend partially on market constraints. Markets are biased to over-supply private goods compared to public goods and, in response, we privatize ourselves to want what markets offer. Markets provide goods designed for the lowest common denominator of intelligence and interest and, in response, we brainwash ourselves to want what’s to be had. And the same holds for work life. Capitalist jobs require a facility for enduring boredom and being passive and, in response, we lobotomize ourselves to deaden our capacities lest they exceed employer requirements. In both goods markets and jobs markets individuals are “free to choose” among available offerings. But what is made available is largely determined by the institutional biases of capitalism. In response, we adjust our individual desires toward the kinds of goods and jobs capitalism supplies and away from the kinds of goods and jobs that capitalism never offers, all so we will most often have our “desires” met. In this was we collectively help reproduce capitalism’s biases. It is sensible to mold our tastes so that we want what is available rather than wanting things we can never find on the market. Or is it? We get what we seek, yet our acts reproduce our oppressions.

Capitalist economic relations include a vast network of roles textured by class as well as race, sex, and political struggles. But when we act within the confines of those roles—as we must do if we are to gain what society has to offer—we also reproduce the defining class and other social divisions and thereby the system of privileges that benefit the socially advantaged. In other words, in addition to whatever needs we satisfy through our work and consumption activity, that activity has material and psychological effects that help reproduce capitalism.

Ironically, our ability to make the best of a bad situation also serves to reproduce our oppressive circumstances. As Herbert Marcuse put it, “What is now at stake are the needs themselves. At this stage the question is no longer: how can the individual satisfy his [or her] own needs without hurting others, but instead how can he satisfy his needs without hurting himself and without reproducing, through his aspirations and satisfactions, his dependence on an exploitative apparatus, which, in satisfying his needs, perpetuates his servitude?”

Since we must eat, we work. Since we must keep our jobs, we mold our wills and

capacities to fit them. To attain fulfillment through consumption, we train our tastes to want what we can buy. We mold ourselves to fit the contours of our environment, thereby establishing meetable needs but also reinforcing that environment and diminishing our chances for real liberation. And we even sense the irony of what we do. As Andre Gorz describes: “Wonder each morning how you’re going to hold on till evening, each Monday how you’ll make it to Saturday. Reach home without the strength to do anything but watch TV, telling yourself you’ll surely die an idiot…Long to smash everything…once a day, feel sick…because you’ve traded your life for a living; fear that the rage mounting within you will die down in the end, that in the final analysis people are right when they say: ‘ah, you can get used to anything.’” 4

Capitalist economic activity generates means of subsistence for most, access to luxuries for some, and an ever greater accumulation of means of production for a few. In the process, it also produces institutional biases against social consumption and self-managed work and it continually reproduces the class relations of capitalism as well as oppressive sex, race, and political relations based in other social spheres. While antagonistic aims fuel perpetual economic struggles over the relative well-being of different classes and social groups, most of the time the basic social relationships of capitalism remain secure. Under certain circumstances, however, subordinate classes can escape the narrow bounds usually circumscribing class struggle and overcome dominant classes replacing old economic relationships with new ones. Just as social stability in part results from reproductive aspects of economic activity, so social change in part results from disruptive aspects of economic activity. But these are matters we will return to once we have completed our abstract survey of each of society’s four spheres.

So ended the chapter proper. As I read it, I again found myself feeling the seven authors did a good job back then that still holds up now, forty years later. I have only two deviations from feeling that, which is not overly surprising as I was one of the authors. The first deviation I “interjected earlier.” What does a stratum between coordinators and workers, mean? How do we conceptualize what we might say is the less empowered part of the coordinator class, and simultaneously the more empowered part of the working class. Should we call it a “middle stratum” or call it either less powerful coordinators or more powerful workers? That is one of many possible issues that might arise in thinking over the Liberating Theory proposals. But the second deviation I might now have, which can also inform, I think, how to think through the first, is a little surprising. Why is there no mention that the coordinator class, pursuing its interests, can become a new ruling class? For me, that is what makes the designation of a third class so important. It affects not just how we think about current relations, like designating a “stratum” might, but also and arguably even more so, how we think about what economic institutions to seek and how to attain them do we not wind up with a post capitalism that still has a ruling class. Maybe these matters will show up in the dialogue for this chapter, which I have moved from the back of the book to here. The dialogues, remember, include an array of participants each of whom has his or her own different political, activist views.

For this dialogue, Coho, our complementary holist participant, first succinctly summarizes her views about the economic sphere. She starts: So, while the economic sphere involves production, consumption, and allocation of material objects, it also affects people’s personalities, skills, consciousness, and relations with one another. The Marxist paradigm minimizes the importance of other spheres of social life to the point of being economistic; it fails to provide concepts for understanding the effect of various kinds of economic activity on human development and needs; it obscures the existence of an extremely important and influential coordinator class (pausing for breath)…

Marlen, our Marxist Leninist participant (unable to contain himself) interrupts: You exaggerate in the most opportunist way in your treatment of economics. Because some Marxists are economistic, then all Marxists must be mechanical Marxists. That’s like saying because some anarchists use bombs, all anarchists are mad-bombers.

Coho: Calling me opportunist doesn’t address the questions I’ve raised. I don’t deny that most Marxists add qualitative concerns to their economic thinking, but they hamper their efforts by removing it from their most basic guiding concepts. For instance, I find nothing in your labor theory of value that takes qualities into account.

Marlen: Well, I…

Coho: In fact, your labor theory of value reduces all matters to “hours of labor.” Quality of work and consumption and mindsets and social relations of workers and consumers have no impact on a) values and exchange rates; and b) quality and character of who we are and what we do.

Marlen: If you would let me get a word in…

Coho interrupts: While your concepts have resulted in rich investigation into classes, your final class definitions have little to say about workplace relations except as they relate to ownership.

Marlen: I…

Nat, our nationalist participant interrupts: And what does the labor theory of value have to say about the importance of workers’ cultural heritage, community identity, and the often intense racism of the white working class?

Marlen: You know my record in working against income differentials and divisions that weaken the working class.

Coho: But your concepts prevent you from seeing that workplace relations, job definitions, chains of command, workplace culture, consumption patterns, and prices are also partially defined by non-class forces.

Marlen: (confident) Of course we recognize the importance of seeing women as economic actors. Big deal. Women are secretaries more often than men.

Sofie: (sarcastic) And big deal, capitalists are rich more often than workers. Can you explain gender divisions of labor? Or why, when men and women hold the same position, men are paid more? Or why, when men take jobs that have been considered “women’s” jobs, those jobs suddenly change, not just in salary levels, but in quality and status? Your categories ensure that you don’t ask those questions; that you don’t even know to ask those questions.

Marlen: I think our analysis of the working class, both women and men, gives some insights into these questions and I fail to see…

Coho interrupts: Precisely my point. You do fail to see. Of course it gives some insights but you overlook influences that affect how people see and relate to one another, the complexity of people’s different interests, and therefore how we are likely to relate to political and economic programs and events. 

Ana: And you also fail to see that Marxism has never in practice meant liberation for the working class. Your concepts recreate authority dynamics through a socialist state.

Nat: And you also fail to fully understand the working class because you are talking only of the white working class. Much of what you think, do and say is geared to appeal to a white working class culture.

Radfem: A white male working class culture.

Marlen: (not impressed) Your arguments expose your failure to comprehend Marxism as a theory of the working class and, more importantly, a theory for revolution and liberation.

Coho: But what Marxist guided revolution has been led by the working class? And what resulting society has been controlled by the working class? Marxism has given us insights into capitalism but it has failed to give us a theory of socialism. Your preferred societies are run by coordinators, not workers.

C.C.: (on firm ground here) You’re criticizing Leninism, not Marxism. I wouldn’t call

Soviet states Marxist. As a marxist, I oppose all forms which subjugate workers. I agree that orthodox Marxism overlooks certain factors but you fail to recognize that there are Marxist strains that have done much better, council communism, for instance. While we are slow to understand the role of gender and race, we are trying to expand and change.

Coho: But since you are a relatively small offshoot, your tenets are swallowed up by the enormity of the marxist heritage you attempt to contradict.

C.C.: Complementary holism doesn’t exactly have a huge following either.

Coho: If that’s still true when we’ve existed as long as council communism has, then I will concede that point. However, that isn’t my only criticism.

C.C.: I had a feeling it wasn’t.

Coho: To me council communism is a merger of Marxism and anarchism in the same way that socialist feminism is a merger of Marxism and feminism. Like the best socialist feminists, the best council communists have altered their component theories to incorporate economic and political insights particularly around the concept self-management. But you fail to criticize all the failings of the theories you combine. You think the main weakness of Marxism is only its Leninist strategic baggage while you overlook more basic conceptual limitations.

Marlen: (eager to reclaim the discussion) This is outrageous. You confuse lack of perfect practice with inherent theoretical failings. Because bureaucratic states have usurped power in certain countries, you want to throw out the entire Marxist vision. A democratic state alongside a centrally planned economy will serve the class which ultimately administers it, the working class. After all, we are, by your own admittance, Coho, searching for theoretical constructs that give us the best chance for the broadest kind of success. From there we can move to perfect it. If we wait to find the broadest possible lowest common denominator theory we will wait until the cows come home, the stew is a crust on the bottom of the pan, the earth has disappeared into a black hole—use any analogy you want.

Coho: Why do you fail to…

Marlen, only beginning to assert the weight of history, interrupts: Let me finish. Nat, you claim concern for the black community but you fail to define and understand capitalism which oppresses all people. To assert your cultural heritage and religion at the expense of a working class revolution seems a luxury we cannot afford. In fact, many in your movement argue for black capitalism. And Radfem, your theory ignores that men are oppressed as well as oppressors. And Ana, your theory tells you nothing about capitalist encirclement. You are so worried about hierarchies you barely mention poverty, occupational health and safety, wages, pensions, and so on.

Coho: But Marlen, you argue my case for me. Why wouldn’t you prefer theoretical concepts that allow you to do all of what you just described? Why argue for concepts that largely exclude all or a combination of them? Why do you hold to a monist framework and insist on its dominance? We’ve all seen how your central planning works. It elevates central planners, managers, and intellectual workers, not the working class.

Neopop: But someone has to administer an economy. The issue is: who will they serve?

Marlen: Quite right. In a capitalist society your coordinators are tools of the capitalists. Coordinators in a socialist society are in the service of workers.

Coho: Coordinators won’t exist in a real socialist society. In your vision, they rule. Sometimes workers in capitalism blindly serve capitalists, yet you have no trouble identifying them as a separate and potentially revolutionary class. Coordinators too can be conscious of their economic position and struggle for ruling status. Marxism’s focus on capitalism’s economic failures and celebration of central planning lay the perfect basis for coordinator control of your so-called working class revolution. Coordinators argue for their superior intellectual skills when they promote central planning, markets, or the best economic uses of technology. The Marxist program allows coordinators to offer some worthwhile benefits to win workers’ allegiance in exchange for coordinator control. In Marxist Leninist societies, for example, the state bureaucracy only took on the double duty of planning the economic and political spheres because there weren’t enough coordinators to do the job. So the state…

Ana: Became lord of all.

Coho: In many western societies, coordinators would be able to administer a centrally planned economy alongside a parliamentary state, which would be in their interest. Eurocommunists have dropped the notion of dictatorship of the proletariat, party, or of anyone else for just that reason.

C.C.: I can’t argue with that. But I would not describe the societies you refer to as

socialist.

Marlen: (in disbelief) I’m in a vacuum of a-historical nonsense. You ignore capitalist

encirclement and the poverty and illiteracy that has held back Marxist revolutions. You ignore that Marxism is read, studied, and adopted by a majority of the world’s population. It has been the theoretical motor for huge historical transformations.

Coho: And I have continually given Marxism its due. But we must critique the failings of its theoretical concepts in light of our desire to bring about true liberation for all spheres of society. The Russian revolution has had decades of history to play itself out. The problems in Soviet society can no longer be blamed solely on outside factors. The Soviet Union is a superpower. East Germany and Czechoslovakia were both industrialized countries when they had the Soviet model rammed down their collective throats, and they have the same basic failings. If the Marxism that informs these models is so good, why do these problems still exist? Because Marxism is a theory geared toward the interests of coordinators, that’s why. History shows it, analysis reveals and predicts it. Coordinator programs and so-called working class organizations display it. (pausing to catch her breath)

Marlen, feebly but still not convinced: But Marxism has also shown that it can change over time, that it can incorporate such recognitions.

C.C.: And it is important to be identified with that tradition. We live and work in a capitalist country that obscures its oppressive economic values with rhetoric about democracy that makes it difficult for people to see the effect of capitalism on daily life. Marxism has fueled opposition…

Coho: Yes, and it’s not that all Marxists won’t change, it’s that not enough will. What changes have you yourself made, Marlen, even when under incredible pressure from black power and women’s movements. And, C.C., most Marxists would rather not include you in their camp since you argue for things they don’t really want…like self-management. The differences between you and other Marxists are so great that using the term Marxist doesn’t really describe what you believe. (pausing for breath)

Marlen: I…

Coho interrupts: Marxism has been a powerful tool for understanding many injustices of capitalism. But the fact that it emphasizes capitalism’s under-utilization and misdirection of productive capabilities can serve a coordinator as well as a socialist view. Coordinators feel they can reorient technology and be more productive and humane by replacing pursuit of profit with elite administration. And Marxism’s celebration of central planning or markets, productivity and efficiency, fits in well with coordinator aims.

Marlen: I…

Coho: Yes?

Marlen: I’m thinking.

Coho: While you’re thinking, why don’t we move to the political sphere?

Ana: (pleased with herself) I’m ready.

Marlen: (still thinking) I’m not.

Plury: I can see why. That was an onslaught. I was about to side with Marlen, just out of sympathy.

Nat: Not me. I feel the weight of history removed from my shoulders.

Cyn: (from the corner smugly) Excuse me…

Coho: Yes, Cyn?

Cyn: You want history? I’ll give you history. History shows there will always be bosses and those who are bossed. It’s human nature.

Sofie: (muttering to Nat) Again with this human nature.

Cyn: Sure, I once believed that all liberty was possible. Then I tried working with people, organizing to build a movement for change. We spent the entire time fighting, arguing to win out over each other. The result? No one could work with anyone else. You can’t bring about change with thousands of parties each made up of one person. (Angry looks focus on the corner chair)

Radfem, on the edge of her seat: Want me to remove this person, Coho? I need some exercise.

Nat, halfway up: You want human nature, Cyn, I’ll show you human nature.

Coho: I’d rather discuss with Ana the weaknesses of her theory regarding the political sphere.

Ana, sighing as the others settle down: Be my guest.

I interject, but discussing polity is for next chapter. 

So needed the dialogue. But, before concluding, I would like to offer one comment from 2026, and I again do not remember what may have been at work among the seven authors in this regard. I am struck by the fact that in the chapter proper, and in the dialogue too, there is no explicit mention of the corporate division of labor as an institutional source of coordinator existence. That is striking to me since the division of labor was then, and now, such a pivotal focus for me and because it was, as well, for the publisher, South End Press. Whatever the reason for it not explicitly coming up here—perhaps it will when Liberating Theory gets to vision. At any rate, this book’s hope was to offer enriched concepts for each sphere of social life, as well as for how the spheres interrelate and affect each other’s development both in calm and in revolutionary times—not to mention what the aims and means of the latter ought to be.

I hope that re-offering this material in 2026 will foster discussion of such matters now.

---