Why isn't class politics recognised as a form of identity politics itself?

When people (whether on the Left or the Right) talk about "identity politics" - usually in a disparaging way - they mainly refer to political affinity and campaigning based on characteristics like race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality etc. I.e. things that (at least in the case of the first three) actually have partial grounding in objective science. In contrast, social class is entirely a social construct with no scientific objectivity behind it, yet many people in politics regard it as axiomatic that people should think primarily in terms of their income and occupation. To me class politics is itself a form of identity politics, and a pretty reactionary and restrictive form at that. Can't others see that?

Practically all politics is identity politics, either consciously or subconsciously. It's a bs term pushed in the last 5 years by Jews like Ben Shapiro and their shabbos in the media, so naive mainstream right-wingers can have a PC label for leftists (and not draw attention to their specifically anti-white/christian etc agenda) and feel morally superior, while preventing them from 'taking their own side'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Practically all politics is identity politics, either consciously or subconsciously.

---

It needn't be. It is possible to argue for either socialism or laissez-faire capitalism on the grounds that, overall, most people benefit regardless of where they are on the socioeconomic spectrum.

I myself am a social democrat (note: social democrat, not socialist), not because I want the supposedly "oppressed" working-classes to benefit at the expense of the supposedly "oppressive" middle and upper-classes. Rather, I believe that well-funded and robust public services and welfare provision are to the benefit of everyone.