Bourgeois economist basically admits that neo-classical economics is pseudoscience.

[Jester]

That being said, what he had to say contained many truthisms - and truth is what I am interested in - I don't really care if they are a Marxist or not.

I appreciate "truthisms". It will join "truthiness" in expanding our horizons of just what truth can be, if we only squint at it just so.

Admittedly I would like see more mainstream economists that use more radical or heterodox analysis instead of the same old shit we see and hear everyday, but that is probably too much to ask and is another topic entirely.

It would be a bit much to ask, given that all of those words are defined relative to each other. If mainstream economists did heterodox economics, then they would either cease to be mainstream, or the economics would cease to be heterodox.

You don't seem interested in the existing variation in methods, beliefs, or ideological leanings among economists. So, what would change if they started using other (non-Marxist) approaches to economics?

-Jester