A notable attribute of these come-lately "class reductionist" types and their gripe with "idpol" is that they *never talk about class as such.* Read Anna Slatz's columns on Pizzagate for Reader's Digest or w/e, and they're entirely fixated on identity, if incredulously—

Slatz, as an irksome eg., doesn’t talk about the economic base, or even the economy. For someone who is all but obliged by her vendetta against "idpol" to otherwise account for political subjectivity, she doesn’t talk about class location or social relations of production, ever.

I’m not saying that a sociologically disinterested, economistic Marxism is viable; only that repackaged conservative ressentiment isn't even close to such a project. (Also, whatever the very online Strasserites say, philosophical "reduction" does not function dismissively.)

The anti-idpol creeps profess class politics only insofar as they've understood class *as an identity* of which everyone immediately partakes; so their contempt for every particular, mediated instance of struggle, while contingently phobic, necessarily expresses class contempt.

For Slatz and ilk, "class reductionism" = moral majoritarianism, culturally fixated as it kicks at people who are insufficiently universal in their subjectivation. ("Why can't you be normal?")

This looks the problem (unequal distribution of means) in the face, and imputes any privation consequent of social location to the individual as a kink. Slatz is wildly homophobic, transmisogynistic, and many other things; but these ideological tics are classist in essence.

"Identity" denotes a complex node of social mediations, always collective and political. Slatz's idiot Marxism is, ironically, cultural; TERFism is undead idpol; and we can mark the difference between an identity politic of the oppressor, and an identity politic of the oppressed.