Anyone else feel the traditional Marxist focus on "class warfare" isn't productive in the first world?

When you talk about a "class war", you are putting peope on one side of the fence or the other. While the group you end up with isn't an inextricable part or your identity, like sex, your membership in that group becomes the identity by which you literally live an die. Class isn't an identity in the same way race is, but when it's used to categorize and self-identify, the difference is arbitrary.

If you would prefer Anarcho-Primitivism over the current state of things, you're a moron. "Absence of class rule" is an important thing to value, but it is not the only thing to value; "not having to do undesirable work", "satisfaction of material needs", "satisfaction of personal desires", and "not dying to treatable medical conditions" are other things that are important. Abolishing capitalism is important to do those latter things, and also to abolish class rule which is desirable in and of itself, but simply getting rid of capitalism without regard to any consequences could very easily result in a worse society.

Moreover, mounting an explicit struggle between a mutually exclusive proletariat and bourgeoisie could exceptionally easily just result in the former proletariat, or a sect among them, being crowned the new bourgeoisie (or nobility, or so on), which obviously wouldn't be any good.

No, it really isn't.