youve brought up that nationalism is also a form of idpol in the past & wanted to ask if you either could elaborate on this or if you had any further reading about it? nw if not
Colloquially, idpol essentially refers to "non-class based politics of identity" - this is the usage that has proliferated most commie spaces anyhow. They critique movements like BLM, Feminism and Land Back for ignoring class or encouraging class collaborationism between the bourgeois and the working class, arguing that these kind of identity focused movements are incompatible with Marxism.
Nationalism is almost inherently class collaborationist in nature and nationalist movements, even those who are nominally ML or Maoist, tend to struggle with reconciling class struggle and internationalism with the idea of the "Nation" as a whole as a unified force against all enemies.
This doesn't mean "nationalism inherently bad" or "all nationalist movements are fascist" but that they have much of the same flaws that the aforementioned liberal movements do. For example, one can support Hamas while acknowledging they aren't going to lead class struggle because that is not an immediate goal for Gazans right now. On the other hand, the MEK trying to do revolutionary defeatism against during the Iraq-Iran war was a massive failure and should be learned from. Theres nuance.
I don't have any resources on this because this is just something I noticed based on what I know (so my source? I made it up).
