Look, it's a very simple story: the US, IMF, etc., were trying to put all of the world's nations -- especially those that they had effectively conquered -- into a Procrustean Bed. Some countries -- the Czech Republic, for example -- didn't need to stretched or amputated as much as others, and so enjoy relative prosperity. Others -- the USSR -- don't. Yet others -- China -- haven't had to lay down on the Bed yet.
Note that I don't really blame the various "technocrats" involved (Sachs, de Long, etc.) They were pawns in the game. As is usual with World Bank-type missions, the technocrats are flown in and provide cookie-cutter advice, which always seems to be the same no matter what the country. But what really happens depends on the balance of power and the various interest-groups (corporations, etc.) that are working to take advantage of the country in question.
(Some who actually have some experience with the countries being "serviced" start to call for more concrete analysis. They "go native" a little, so you see Sachs now railing against the IMF. Usually they are transferred out quickly, before they "get too close to their subject" and lose "objectivity.")
As for the bourgeoisie being apolitical, Doug is right to say "hogwash" (though he didn't use that word). Capitalist power is inherently social, even though appropriation of the profits resulting from that power is individual.
BTW, Brad you should read Marc Bloch on feudalism. He's not a Marxist, in case you were wondering.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html