as per a conversation earlier...

...when a system hides so well the divisions within it, where to begin to look for weakness.

There is not a class war in our society, we have not yet reached the progress of our ancestors. In most areas we do not have the consciousness for a class war. This does not pertain to most reading this blog, but to far to many others.

Many workers in service treat the bourgeoisie better than their own comrades. Not because they want to be bourgeois themselves, but rather because our system perpetuates that "success" (and therefore money) is somehow bestowed upon the "better" part of society. We are conditioned to treat "our betters" with respect, not to question how they obtained this status.

Unification before revolution.

economic methodology

"Calculus has been so successful because of its extraordinary power to reduce complicated problems to simple rules and procedures".

No argument from me on this one. Thing is, calculus fails both in the realm of prediction of complex systems (because when we simplify we lose partial determinants), and also in the realm of the important, the non-tangible, the non-rigorous, calculus can not appreciate the beauty of the insane.

formation of economic discouse in bourgeois society

It seems that discussion of the system itself does not often enter the daily economic discussion of most in our system. One of the primary goals of a (pre)revolutionary then has to be not only to fight against a system of bourgeois domination but to make consistent and repeated attempts to have the language of revolution become a part of mainstream discourse. Currently discussions of change in the economics profession, and in broader economic discussions are predominately limited to how to change the system we have.

It may be unrealistic to think that this type of discussion can immediately be changed to a broad public acceptance of the discourse of revolution. I would instead suggest that a possible first step would be to push for wider linguistic usage of concepts surrounding why we have the system we do, and how it came into place. In my own (ongoing) development acceptance and usage of this discourse lead naturally to questions of why can we not have a system that is better than capitalism.
History stands tall for the revolutionary.