Paraphrasing Deleuze, this paper is an attempt ask ‘what camps can do?’ However you wish to define them, semantically represent the paradoxical encounters between a series of governmental forces, disciplinary knowledge, aesthetic regimes and spatial conditions that tend to arrest, fix in time and space forms of lives. As starting point, the camp remains a rare object of study that can exist, simultaneously, in the realm of theory, in the space of matter and in the form of multiple agency. It is an ideological thought and a formal dispositive, one that antagonises the spatial precepts of modernism through its heavily loaded political semantics. Beside the wide spectrum of camp-like typologies, is in its bare essence a dispositif that explicitly determine the other, the unknown and the uncontrolled in what Mezzadra and Neilson, called “the different assemblages of power and the different forces of capital through which they are fragmented, recombined and produced”. Using somehow playfully the concepts of ‘dispossession’ developed by Butler and Athanasiou and the one of the ‘pluriverse’ developed by Escobar, I would like to stress two different but interconnected points: on one side, I hope to rescue Agamben’s work from its linear reading by commenting on the depoliticization of the camp and the critique of its exceptionalism; and, on the other, I wish to reflect around the urban- camp debate, introducing the disruptive terminology of inhabitation. With narratives from Middle East, Asia and Europe the paper wish to start grasping the possibility to decolonialise camp scholarship.