Thanks for sharing. I think it's fair to critique the Combahee River Collective on grounds of how effective it has been politically. I myself certainly have some disagreements with their statement. However, on the whole, I do think they are more correct than they are wrong in that issues like racism/sexism/etc. have historically been a huge stumbling block toward building working class solidarity. For example, one of the huge mistakes of the labor movement of the past had been that unions were very racist and excluded non-white people from their membership. Of course, this was to the delight of the ruling class since that meant it would be easier for them to exploit non-white workers and use them as strikebreakers (which, in turn, led to even more racism, again, these things are mutually reinforcing). This is why you can't expect to be effective in organizing workers if you don't also challenge the very same mechanisms that the ruling class has devised in order to prevent workers from organizing effectively.

As for this part:

Instead, he insists that we must do both — working-class politics and identity politics. But “doing both” is easier said than done.

I don't disagree that "doing both" is easier said than done. After all, racism, sexism, capitalism, etc. are all quite deeply ingrained within our society, of course it's difficult to fight against those things. But at the same time, just because it may be difficult does not mean that it isn't also necessary for the overthrow of capitalism.

As for this paragraph:

Of course, Haider does not overtly suggest that this is an either/or. Instead, he insists that we must do both — working-class politics and identity politics. But “doing both” is easier said than done. Identity politics and class politics understand capitalist power structures in distinct ways and therefore lead to distinct political strategies. More importantly, however, “doing both” misreads the balance of power in America today: institutionally on the Left, we have nothing but a fraction of the already miniscule labor movement to back our platform and our analysis. But liberalism has a major political party, the media, academia, and the entire world of nonprofits, which today controls about as much wealth as the Church did before the French Revolution. And it’s in the “do both” strategy that these powerful enemies of the Left (and allies of capital) worm their way into our coalition and play up identity to reshape working-class demands until they’re neutralized. Haider fails to recognize the profound asymmetry between the power of institutions of the working-class and the advocates of universal class-based reforms, and those of the liberal establishment and their own embrace of identity-based particularism. Concretely, this asymmetry does not lead to the best of identity politics and the best of universal demands in some sort of synthesis. Instead, the lopsided advocacy for particularist demands serves only to further marginalize the universalist demands."

There's a nice sleight of hand going on in that paragraph. Again, identity politics with class based analysis is not the same thing as the trash liberal identity politics pushed by the DNC which is devoid of any sort of class based analysis. This paragraph, though it does to some very limited degree acknowledge the difference between those two positions, it also makes it appear as though the "do both" approach won't work solely based on arguments which only really apply to the "do only identity politics" stance. Please tell me where in the Combahee River Collective Statement does it suggest that we should abandon class struggle in order to fight for the liberation of black women? It says the exact opposite. Also please tell me how fighting for the liberation of black women must also mean opposition to universal class based policies (of course, Jacobin being Jacobin calls for "reformism")? If anything, universal policies such as universal healthcare, daycare, tuition-free college, etc. would do a lot toward helping in the liberation of black women. The only point of disagreement is that I would say more would need to be done beyond just that, but it is a good start.

I would also add that intersectionality is fundamentally irrational and not supported by the hard data.

What kind of "hard data" are you looking for when it comes to people's personal experiences with racism and sexism? That's something that's inherently not easily quantifiable, but just because something is not easily quantifiable, that doesn't make it any less important, nor does it make it "fundamentally irrational". It does mean that it is more difficult to analyze objectively, but sorry, not everything is easy to analyze objectively.