Dahrendorf, like Merton, looked at latent and manifest interests and further classified them as unconscious and conscious interests. He found the connection between these two concepts to be problematic for the conflict theory.  Dahrendorf believed that the basis of class conflict was the division of three groups of society: quasi groups, interest groups, and conflict groups.  Thus, society can be split up into the "command class" and the "obey class". The command class exercises authority, while the obey class not only has no authority, and but is also subservient to that of others. With a clear interplay between both class types class conflict theory sought to explain that interplay.  Quasi groups are "aggregates of incumbents of positions with identical role interests".  Interest groups are derived from the quasi groups and they are organised with members, an organisation, and a program or goal. The main difference between quasi groups and interest groups are that interest groups are able to organise and have a sense of "belonging" or identity.  Darhendorf acknowledged that other conditions like politics, adequate personnel, and recruitment would play a role along with the groups. He also believed that, under ideal circumstances, conflict could be explained without reference to other variables.  Unlike Marx, however, he did not believe that random recruitment into the quasi group, it would not start a conflict group. In contrast to Lewis Coser's ideas that functions of conflict maintained the status quo, Dahrendorf believed that that conflict also leads to change (in social structure) and development.  His belief in a changing society separated Dahrendorf's ideas from Marx who supported the concept of a utopia.