Holloway - Crack Capitalism.pdf - Libcom

could be something separate from us: like it or not, we are part
of the process, our reading or writing is part of the movement.
We, at least in English, are un-gendered: we are not divided in
advance into two gendered camps. The We of the shadowy figure,
however, is not just un-gendered but anti-gender, opposed to the
gender divisions of the character mask. And since the dividedgender
world of the character mask is a world dominated by one
of those genders, perhaps what we need is a We with a feminine
lilt. In languages in which We has a gender characterisation,
such as Spanish with its nosotroslnosotras, clearly 'nosotras'
is a better characterisation of the shadowy subject, a nosotras
understood perhaps not as affirmation of femininity but as revolt
against masculinity.
We (the we-nosotras-doer who stand behind the he-Iabourercharacter-mask)
are plural: not in the sense of a defined group
or collectivity, but in the sense of an open flow. We flow into
you (and they): 'detras estamos ustedes' ('behind [the balaclava]
are the we that are yoU'),16 as the Zapatistas so beautifully put
it. We flow into one another because our doing (all our doings)
are part of the social flow of doing, that interweaving of doings,
conscious or unconscious, planned or unplanned, tightly woven
or with loose ends, that constitutes our sociality.
We are not a homogeneous mass, far from it. Nor are we
a multitude of differences. We are rather the revolt of doing
against abstract labour, the revolt of heterogeneity against
homogenisation, the revolt of difference against contradiction,17
the revolt of beyond-ness against and beyond mere against-ness.
The abstraction of doing into labour is its homogenisation: it
is achieved through the imposition of equivalence upon nonequivalent
activities. The struggle of doing against labour is a
revolt against this homogenisation, an assertion of the difference
of our doings, an attempt to break through the binary antagonism
of capital and to emancipate our doings from the abstraction
imposed through money. Heterogeneity is not an ontological
characteristic, it is rather our struggle against the abstraction
of labour, and central to that struggle.
The heterogeneous pushing-beyond is not a pushing beyond
sociality to individualism, not a pushing beyond the social flow
of doing, though it may appear to be so. It is rather a pushing
220