I was unable to read any of the Parecon discussion until now (those exams had to be graded), so I've been holding back. (I'm also way over quota, but what the hell.) I have one comment and then I'll shut up and do the stuff I'm paid to do.
It seems to me that the definition of the "coordinator" class should be seen in terms of Harry Braverman's classic book, LABOR AND MONOPOLY CAPITAL. There, he distinguishes between _conception_ and _execution_ in a labor process. This differs from the mental/manual labor distinction that many make, since it's a matter of who is deciding the what tasks should be done. Everyone does mental labor and everyone does manual labor (even if it involves pushing a pencil). But those who do conception have power over those who "just follow orders" (the executors).
In Braverman, Taylorism involves cementing the division between conception and execution. As part of this process, the conception-workers gain more and more power, since they simplify the jobs of the execution-workers so that the latter have to make the smallest number of decisions. This is the deskilling of the labor process (which B unfortunately confuses with the deskilling of workers, but that's another subject). It doesn't just increase the output which each individual execution-worker can produce; it also takes away his or her ability to understand the labor process as a whole and to (potentially) control that process.
Taylorism seems a logical result of capitalism's development (though it's often mixed with other management systems and appears under other names, as B points out). This of course, is why Lenin's embracing of Taylor is so controversial among socialists and other leftists. A negative aspect of capitalism being embraced by a socialist! But of course, Lenin was desperate, dealing with a civil war, imperialist invasion, the division between the city and the countryside, the underdeveloped state of the forces of production and of working-class organization and consciousness, etc.
Albert (and his co-thinkers) seem to go one step further, suggesting that even if the revolution in Russia had not had all those problems, the establishment of Taylorism -- or even the failure to fight against Taylorism sufficiently -- produces a class division between the conception-workers (coordinators) and the execution-workers. The former can use their knowledge to control the latter. This is true even if the means of production are nationalized and the state put under national democratic control. An idealized system such as that presented in Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD would degenerate into a conception-workers' dictatorship. Of course Albert _et al_ point to the "coordinatorism" in the actually-once-existed socialist states and under social democracy, too.
The solution, it seems, is to organize production in terms of balanced job complexes, in which the main principle is the abolition of the division between conception and execution. Everyone participates in management and does sh*t work too.
It seems to me that this could work on the micro level. A key question is whether or not the balanced job complexes could coodinate their activities on the societal level in a way that corresponds to the democratic will of the population... Is there some way to duplicate the abolition of the conception/execution division on the macro level? (I sorta know Michael's answer, but I'd like to hear if the stuff above is accurate or not.)
------------------------ Jim Devine jdevine at lmu.edu & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine