I don't know what your criticism of identity politics looks like so I really can't say. But I'm of the opinion that the problem with liberal idpol is the liberalism, not the idpol. Most often, in my experience, people who complain about idpol while talking about how the bourgeoisie use it to divide the proletariat are actually just part of that division. For example, it's not BLM that divides the working class, it's the racism that BLM is a response to. The kind of dickhead who complains that BLM is dividing the working class is just propagating that division, because BLM is in fact a response to real, material inequalities that are used to split the proletariat. If someone signals that they think BLM is in some way a waste of time, they are making it clear that black comrades aren't safe around them, and therefore they are an impediment to class solidarity.

I'm a white dude in my 40s and not terrifically well read so anyone who spots a problem with my position please by all means weigh in.

[–] Salah@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I suppose that when I think of identity politics, I think of people who say we should listen to jewish people about how antizionism is antisemitism, (white) trans people about how everyone should’ve voted for kamala holocaust, zionist Iranians about how we should celebrate western interference in Iran etc.

But maybe that isn’t actually identity politics and more so deference politics.

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago

Oh no, that's 100% liberal idpol. The problem, as I say, is the liberalism - the deference to liberal institutions and alignment with the global hegemon, in this case. But the identity politics in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem isn't "caring about antisemitism", it's misidentifying what is or is not antisemitic and aligning with the interests of the bourgeoisie. Where antisemitism happens we should still be concerned about it (though we should also be aware of its limited impact compared to Islamophobia).