With regards to the anti-identity politics section of the left, it must be remembered that many involved in new social movements (term used before idpol) broke with the organised left because it was felt that they didn’t take issues of race, gender & sexuality seriously.
Contemporary left-wing criticisms that many of those involved in activism around issues of race, gender, sexuality, etc don’t take class seriously overlooks that for decades, class-based politics was seen as ‘bread and butter’ politics while other issues were seen as peripheral.
The origins of identity politics can partly be seen in those activists who felt the need to break with the organised left over the focus put in class at the expense of other forms of oppression. Of course, this has shifted and changed since these battles in 1970s-80s.
Yes, some advocates of what gets called ‘identity politics’ overlook issues of class, but these outlooks have developed out of schisms in the left over thirty years. A call for a return to ‘class first’ politics ignores this historical legacy.
This isn’t a defence of identity politics per se, but these are issues that need to be taken seriously. A lot of the organised left dislike the term ‘intersectionality’ but it makes a lot of sense.
You can follow @evanishistory.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: