The original "social question" of industrial society arose from strife between labor and capital and how the state should respond. As they evolved and encountered historical contingencies, these social tensions produced different power configurations in different countries. Debates have continued to the present about the best theoretical explanations of these configurations. These include class, state, managerial, institutional, rationalchoice and most recently cultural. Bourdieu's work on the field of power synthesizes much of this theoretical development, describing it as a social space that adjudicates among its component bureaucratic, political, economic, cultural, symbolic and social fields. His work remains abstract and assumes the French case, but it opens the potential for flexibly considering different combinations of these factors in empirical historical comparative analysis. This paper adopts this background framework to draw out the theoretical implications of a comparative analysis of political network patterns between labor, capital and the state in three national polities. The network data represents the late 1980s politics of making laborrelevant government policy in the USA, Germany and Japan. Data analysis shows that the three polities all exhibited forms of class division and state mediation, but differed dramatically in the state's role and the relational media of that mediation. The three forms may be labeled business-pluralist (USA), labor-management corporatist (Germany) and state-coordinated corporatist (Japan). Among the relational media, networks of expected reciprocity displayed a massively different presence: in Germany minimal, in the US only among labor organizations, but in Japan, encompassing both labor and business and centered on a managerial (though capital dominated) state. These findings imply that, among the numerous factors contributing to the historical genesis of these distinct formations, distinct cultural value systems shaped the relational doxa: utilitarian individualism (USA), legal universalism (Germany) and hierarchical particularism (Japan). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]