[WS:] Well, my point was that distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat based on property relations is not very useful because they are ideological constructs that do not fit reality very well. In other words, they exist only in the minds of Marxists. By contrast, my view is that the formation, identities and interests of social groups are far more complex than property relations - they include race and ethnic identity, gender identity, cultural/sociolinguistic/religious identity, geographical location, historical paths, nationality, international relations, political identities, occupational identities, access to natural resources as well as conscious efforts aimed at collective identity or group building (unions, political parties, churches, social movements, propaganda, etc) - to name a few of the top of my head.
This really creates a wide array of social groups with different interests and different perceptions of of their interests which simply do not fit to the Procrustrean bed of the black and white two classes defined by property relations and fighting each other. Given this variety it is impossible to predict apriori, as Marxists try to do, what the collective interests of different social groupings are, let alone what is the dynamics of interaction among these groupings. One must determine those interests and that dynamics empirically, by observing specific groups in specific socio-historical context. This is why studying alliances and conflicts among groups instead of deducing them from theory is so important in my thinking.
To put it differently, I think that outside national accounting and labor statistics (which are useful,) economic theory - bourgeois, Marxist or otherwise - is a bunch of horseshit for the most part that says very little how real people think, act and interact with each other. It is like trying to render the full spectrum of colors, shapes and shades on a black & white screen with very low resolution - what you get is a caricature of reality at best, and a bunch of useless and misleading garbage at worst. I think that sociology and anthropology have far more to contribute to the understanding of human behavior and interaction than economics can ever wet-dream about. This is why economics uses props that make it appear like a natural science to maintain any credibility. Without these props it would be indistinguishable from medieval theology.
Wojtek