semi-automatic waffle: 2025

Saturday, 30 August 2025

Agamben and Nonprofits

Parallels can be drawn with the critique advanced in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, which analyzes the nonprofit industrial complex as a mechanism for managing and depoliticizing the marginalized. Just like rights, political recognition through nonprofits is conditional. You “get funded” if you speak the right language, follow the rules, and make yourself legible to the state and philanthro-capital. Nonprofits include marginalized groups by granting them voice only through exclusionary criteria (grant requirements, metrics, respectability). This is Agamben’s “exclusive inclusion” at a structural level. The nonprofit world manages bare life; funding structures produce a population that is depoliticized, pacified, and always precarious — rights and recognition dangling on continued compliance and capacity. Revolution Will Not Be Funded shows a seemingly softer, neoliberal version: people are allowed political life only through institutions that constantly threaten to withdraw it.

LLM

Yes—Gilmore’s analysis of prisons as a “fix” for surpluses of labor, land, and capital, and as a racialized mode of abandonment/control, is not uniquely American. While she writes from the U.S. context, similar dynamics can be found elsewhere, often shaped by colonial legacies, neoliberal restructuring, or authoritarian governance. A few key examples:

1. United Kingdom (post-1980s onwards)

After deindustrialization under Thatcher, many former industrial towns were left with high unemployment. At the same time, the prison population nearly doubled between the early 1980s and 2010, despite crime rates not rising proportionately.
Prisons absorbed the “redundant” working class, disproportionately Black and minority ethnic communities.
Surplus land: deindustrialized regions in the North and Midlands saw prison construction as a substitute for lost manufacturing jobs, echoing Gilmore’s California case.

2. Brazil

Brazil has the third-largest prison population in the world (close to 800,000). This expansion accelerated from the 1990s, coinciding with neoliberal reforms and urban restructuring.
Poor, largely Afro-Brazilian populations are criminalized under “war on drugs” policies.
Overcrowded prisons serve as sites of abandonment and containment, managing “surplus” populations excluded from the formal economy.
Like the U.S., this has become profitable: the rise of private prison contracts and construction firms that benefit from expansion.

3. South Africa (post-apartheid)

Despite the end of apartheid, incarceration has remained a mechanism for managing surplus Black populations displaced by neoliberal restructuring.
Massive unemployment (over 30%) has coincided with very high levels of incarceration.
Prison construction expanded in the 1990s, including private prisons run by multinational firms (e.g., G4S).
Abandonment here is tied to both apartheid’s spatial legacies and contemporary neoliberal dispossession.

4. Australia

Indigenous Australians are vastly overrepresented in prisons—over 30% of the prison population while being ~3% of the total population.
Incarceration functions as a mechanism of colonial management, especially in remote areas where other state services are withdrawn.
New prisons are often built in rural/remote regions with surplus land, framed as local job-creation projects.
This links racialized abandonment, settler-colonial land use, and neoliberal “solutions” to unemployment.

5. Europe (peripheries, especially Eastern Europe & Greece post-crisis)

After the 2008 financial crisis, austerity dismantled social support systems. Several countries turned toward intensified policing, detention of migrants, and prison expansion as a way of managing social unrest.
Greece, for instance, combined austerity with expanded detention of migrants as a way of spatializing abandonment—outsourcing containment to camps and prisons.
EU border regimes (Frontex, detention centers in Italy, Hungary, etc.) treat migrants as “surplus life,” contained in camps that are politically and economically integrated into state policy and private contracts.

In short:
Gilmore’s framework travels well. Whether in Brazil’s urban favelas, South Africa’s townships, or Australia’s Indigenous communities, we see the same pattern: prisons and carceral infrastructures function as fixes for capitalist crises and as racialized technologies of abandonment and control. The U.S. is just the most extreme and paradigmatic case.

Do you want me to map these global examples explicitly back to Gilmore’s “surpluses” framework (finance, labor, land, state capacity), so it mirrors her California analysis point for point?

Yes

Great — let’s map the global cases explicitly back onto Gilmore’s four surpluses (finance capital, labor, land, state capacity), so you can see how her California analysis resonates elsewhere:

1. United Kingdom (post-1980s)

Surplus labor: Deindustrialization left hundreds of thousands unemployed, especially in the North/Midlands. Prisons absorbed part of this “redundant” working class, disproportionately Black and working-class men.
Surplus land: Deindustrialized and rural areas were repurposed for prison building, presented as regional economic “revitalization.”
Surplus finance capital: Private contractors and the growing prison-industrial complex (e.g., Serco, G4S) found profitable outlets in prison expansion and outsourcing of services.
Surplus state capacity: With policing expanded under “law and order” regimes, the state redirected bureaucratic resources from welfare to incarceration.

2. Brazil

Surplus labor: Neoliberal reforms + informalization of work produced massive underemployment. Carceral expansion managed populations excluded from the formal economy.
Surplus land: Peripheral urban zones and rural areas were used for new prison complexes.
Surplus finance capital: Prison construction and services became an outlet for investment; public-private partnerships proliferated.
Surplus state capacity: The state expanded punitive apparatuses while retrenching social services, channeling resources into policing and imprisonment.

3. South Africa (post-apartheid)

Surplus labor: Transition to neoliberal capitalism left many Black South Africans unemployed. Prisons became holding zones for this “excess” population.
Surplus land: Rural or marginal spaces, including townships and areas with little economic investment, were targeted for prison construction.
Surplus finance capital: International prison firms (like G4S) entered, creating new profit streams.
Surplus state capacity: The democratic state inherited and expanded coercive infrastructures from apartheid, diverting state resources to punitive rather than redistributive policies.

4. Australia

Surplus labor: Remote areas suffering economic decline were promised jobs through prison construction.
Surplus land: Prisons were sited in rural/remote areas on “surplus” land, often overlapping with colonially dispossessed Indigenous territory.
Surplus finance capital: Prison expansion became a profitable industry for construction firms and private operators.
Surplus state capacity: The state concentrated its administrative and coercive power on policing Indigenous Australians, while withdrawing from welfare and services.

5. European Union (migration & austerity context)

Surplus labor: Migrants, refugees, and unemployed citizens were treated as excess labor populations; rather than being integrated, they were warehoused in camps and detention centers.
Surplus land: Abandoned or marginal territories (e.g., old military bases, rural peripheries) became sites for migrant detention centers.
Surplus finance capital: Security firms, construction companies, and NGOs profited from EU detention projects and Frontex contracts.
Surplus state capacity: In austerity-hit states (e.g., Greece), welfare was gutted, while bureaucratic capacity was redirected toward migration control and securitization.

📌 Synthesis:
Across these cases, we see Gilmore’s surpluses framework generalize well:

Labor: Carceral systems manage populations rendered “superfluous” to the economy.
Land: Prisons occupy and “use up” marginal or devalued territories.
Finance capital: Investment finds outlets in carceral infrastructure and services.
State capacity: The state’s organizational power shifts from welfare/provision to coercion/containment.

This comparative mapping shows that Gilmore’s insight—that prisons are not about crime but about managing crises of accumulation and abandonment—has global resonance, even if the racial and historical specificities differ.

Gemini:

Part I: The Philosophical Foundations—Agamben's Homo Sacer Project

1.1 The Division of Life: Zoe and Bios

Giorgio Agamben's work on sovereign power is founded upon a critical distinction inherited from ancient Greek thought: the separation of zoē and bios.

Zoe expresses the simple, biological fact of living, a form of existence common to all living beings, from humans to animals. In contrast, bios refers to a politically qualified life, indicating the particular form, manner, or way of living that is proper to an individual or a group within the social body. This distinction establishes the foundational terrain upon which sovereign power operates. The political realm, traditionally understood as the space where human community and the "good life" (bios) are cultivated, is in fact secretly rooted in the inclusion of "bare life" (zoē) at its very core.

This premise implies that the political is not merely a regulatory apparatus that governs an already existing social life; rather, it is a productive force. The inclusion of bare life in the political realm is, according to Agamben, the "original—if concealed—nucleus of sovereign power". The sovereign does not simply manage the "good life" of its citizens; it actively produces the condition of "bare life" as a foundational element of its own existence. This subtle but crucial point differentiates Agamben's project from earlier philosophical investigations into biopolitics, which tended to focus on the management of populations rather than the production of a "killable" life.

Furthermore, Agamben's theory reveals a parasitic relationship between law and its exceptions. The law, which focuses on the "good life" of the citizen, does not truly exist outside of or distinct from bare life. Instead, it is constituted by what it "manages to capture inside itself through the inclusive exclusion". The law is a rule not because it universally applies to all things but because it must first "create the sphere of its own reference in real life and make that reference regular". This means that the law, while seemingly existing to regulate raw, bare life, cannot exist without the exceptions it creates from the norms of that life. The sovereign, as the law-giver, first decides what is "normal" and what is an "exception," thereby creating the very terms of its own authority. This mechanism of "inclusive exclusion" is the central paradox of sovereign power, where the sovereign creates a space of non-law—the state of exception—to justify the law itself.

1.2 The Sovereign and the State of Exception

The sovereign's power, according to Agamben, is not derived from a universal body of law but from the ability to suspend it. Agamben defines the sovereign as "the one who decides on the exception," identifying this decision as the fundamental act of sovereign power. The "state of exception" is a paradoxical space where the application of law is suspended, yet the law itself does not cease to be in force; it remains as a "pure force of violence". This space is characterized by anomie, a condition where law and violence are indistinguishable, and where the juridical order itself is deactivated.

The act of suspending the law reveals the true nature of power not as a force that creates order from a primordial void, but as a force that actively produces the void itself—the state of exception—to justify and consolidate its rule. While the state of exception is typically understood as a temporary measure, such as martial law, Agamben contends that it has become the permanent, if invisible, paradigm of modern political power. Contemporary political events, such as the indefinite detentions authorized by the War on Terror following 9/11, are presented as evidence of this trend. The implication is that the "normal" functioning of the state is increasingly defined by its exceptions, making the line between law and violence increasingly blurred.

This analysis of sovereignty reveals a profound paradox. The sovereign is simultaneously "inside" and "outside" the juridical order; they are both the creator of the law and the one who can suspend it. This paradox is mirrored in the figure of homo sacer, a figure who is "outside of or beyond the law, but still included by it". This paradoxical relationship is central to Agamben's argument, demonstrating that sovereign power and bare life are two sides of the same coin, each defining the other in a co-dependent relationship of "inclusive exclusion". The existence of a life that can be killed with impunity is not a marginal concern but the very foundation upon which the entire political order is built.

1.3 Homo Sacer: The Paradigm of Inclusive Exclusion

To articulate this central paradox of sovereign power, Agamben resurrects the obscure figure of the homo sacer, an ancient Roman form of outlaw. This figure was a person who, having been banned, could be killed by anyone with impunity but could not be sacrificed in a religious ritual. The homo sacer is thus an outlaw who is "captured outside" the law but simultaneously "included by virtue of its very exclusion". This figure embodies the reduction of a person to a state of pure zoē, stripped of political protection and juridical standing. For Agamben, the homo sacer is not a mere historical curiosity but a "transhistorical-paradigmatic figure" that encapsulates the logic of modern state power. The existence of this killable, unprotected life is the hidden foundation upon which the entire political order rests.

A significant point of critical engagement with Agamben's theory concerns his choice of the homo sacer as his central paradigm. The analysis notes that Agamben's project strangely omits other "cardinal and long-familiar figures of sociopolitical inequality such as the slave and the barbarian". These figures, like the homo sacer, were also reduced to "something less than human" and subjected to exploitation outside the normal legal framework, a pattern that is repeated in contemporary times with "illegal migrants". By focusing on a figure from Roman law rather than the more widespread and historically persistent figures of slavery and barbarism, Agamben's theory has been critiqued as being overly "legalistic" and "formalist," potentially obscuring the role of racial and economic subjugation that is central to the history of these practices. This critique highlights a perceived gap in Agamben's work, which is later addressed by theorists who place race, capitalism, and geography at the center of their analysis.

Part II: A Historical Case Study—The T4 Program as a Biopolitical Laboratory

2.1 Eugenics and the Ideology of a "Life Unworthy of Life"

The Nazi T4 program did not emerge from a vacuum; it was the culmination of an intellectual and legal history that provided the ideological groundwork for state-sanctioned murder. The program was built upon the concept of "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben). This phrase was first articulated in a 1920 book titled Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, co-authored by jurist Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche. In their work, Binding and Hoche argued that certain living people—those with brain damage, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric illnesses—were "mentally dead" and "human ballast". They presented these individuals as a financial burden to the state and society, arguing that their killing would be a "deliverance" for themselves and for the nation.

This ideology was part of a wider, international eugenics movement that flourished in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was embraced in the United States and Western Europe, including Germany. Eugenicists sought "biological solutions to social problems," believing that modern medicine and welfare programs were interfering with natural selection and leading to a "biological 'degeneration'" of the population. The concept of "racial hygiene" was central to this movement, with proponents in Germany linking eugenics to racial superiority and discussing "race mixing" as a source of biological decay.

The T4 program was not a spontaneous act of cruelty but the horrific endpoint of a deliberate, step-by-step process that began with the academic and legal legitimation of eugenics. This causal chain can be traced: it started with the scientific pseudoscience of eugenics and racial hygiene , which provided the legal and medical justification for the elimination of those deemed "unfit" through texts like the Binding and Hoche pamphlet. This was followed by the implementation of policies like the 1933 "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring," which required the compulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of people. This process of dehumanization, rooted in the seemingly benign language of science, public health, and fiscal responsibility, was a prerequisite for the state-sanctioned clandestine murders of the T4 program and, eventually, the mass exterminations of the Holocaust.

2.2 Aktion T4

Aktion T4, named for the address of its headquarters in Berlin, was the Nazi regime's program of forced "euthanasia," a euphemism for the systematic murder of those considered "life unworthy of life". The program began in 1939 with the killing of newborns and children with disabilities, before expanding to include adults who were incurably ill or mentally and physically disabled. Although public outrage led to the program's official cessation in 1941, the euthanasia policy continued in secrecy throughout World War II, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 to 350,000 people.

The systematic nature of T4 is particularly revealing. It was not a chaotic slaughter but a meticulously organized operation facilitated by medical professionals who assessed individuals for inclusion based on "preconceived criteria". These doctors, who viewed the state as their primary "patient," came to see the "purification" of the German body politic as a necessary medical "treatment". They transformed from healers into "biological soldiers" and used their medical expertise to justify and carry out mass murder. The program served as a pilot for the methods of mass extermination later employed in the Holocaust, normalizing the use of gas chambers and other killing methods.

The T4 program perfectly embodies Agamben’s theories of sovereign power and bare life. It represents a state of exception where the juridical order was suspended for a specific population, allowing the sovereign to act without legal consequence. The victims of T4 were reduced to pure zoē, stripped of their political existence and protections, becoming a form of "living dead" who could be killed with impunity. The Nazi state’s decision to ban these lives was the foundational political act that created a class of people who were legally "killable but not sacrificable". T4 thus serves as a grim and direct demonstration of how the concepts of bare life and sovereign power are not mere metaphors but blueprints for systematic violence.

Part III: Expanding the Lens—Necropolitics and Organized Abandonment

3.1 Achille Mbembe and the Administration of Death

While Agamben's work provides a compelling framework for understanding the juridical-political function of bare life, it has been critiqued for its perceived formalism and its underemphasis on race and colonial power. Achille Mbembe, a Cameroonian philosopher, offers a crucial expansion of this framework with his concept of necropolitics, which he defines as the use of political power to dictate "how some people may live and how some must die". Mbembe argues that contemporary state-sponsored death cannot be fully explained by Michel Foucault's theories of biopower, which focus on how power manages and optimizes life. While biopolitics operates on the logic of "let live and make die," Mbembe’s necropolitics focuses on a more direct administration of death and the creation of "death-worlds".

Necropolitics represents a critical theoretical shift from a focus on law to a focus on the spatial manifestation of power. Agamben’s analysis centers on the juridical structure of the state of exception, but Mbembe's framework examines the creation of "deathscapes"—militarized zones, occupied territories, and refugee camps—where life is actively "subjugated to death" through "merciless exploitation" and structural violence. These spaces are not merely marginal to the political order; they are where sovereign power is most potently expressed through the abandonment and annihilation of populations deemed dangerous, disposable, or inhuman.

Mbembe explicitly identifies racism as a primary driver of this form of violence, arguing that it systematically cheapens the lives of racialized people, habituating them to loss. He distinguishes between institutional racism, which he terms "hydraulic racism," and the everyday interpersonal violence of "nanoracism," which is designed to stigmatize and humiliate. This provides the racial analysis that is often seen as missing from Agamben's more abstract, formalist approach, demonstrating that the decision of who is reduced to bare life is a fundamentally racialized one.

3.2 Ruth Wilson Gilmore's "Organized Abandonment"

Ruth Wilson Gilmore provides a materialist explanation for the rise of the carceral state, connecting philosophical theory to the political economy of racial capitalism. Her work explains that the exponential expansion of the prison system in the United States is not a direct response to a rise in crime but rather a deliberate, organized response to specific economic crises and social instability. Gilmore argues that this process, which she terms "organized abandonment," involves the intentional disinvestment in communities and the dismantling of social programs. The social problems that result from this abandonment—unemployment, lack of housing, and poverty—are then addressed through carceral solutions, creating a state that both withdraws life-sustaining supports and simultaneously expands its punitive infrastructure.

Gilmore's framework demonstrates that "bare life" is not an accidental or timeless condition but a produced outcome of specific economic and political choices. When the state systematically disinvests in a community, it reduces the lives of its residents to a precarious state, making them susceptible to being managed and controlled by carceral violence. This adds a crucial economic and geographical layer to the theories of Agamben and Mbembe, explaining the political and financial motivations for creating a surplus population that can be disposed of through a system of mass punishment.

The growth of the prison system, particularly in California, is not correlated with a rising crime rate, but rather with a response to "surpluses of finance capital, labor, land, and state capacity". The prison system serves as a "fix" for economic crises: it absorbs a surplus population of workers displaced by deindustrialization, uses up surplus land, and provides a productive return on surplus finance capital. This turns a social problem into a profitable enterprise and a form of social control. Gilmore’s analysis reveals that the seemingly "mundane" operations of the carceral state—such as budget decisions that expand jail funding or land-use decisions that concentrate prisons in specific regions—are, in fact, forms of violence that are part of a larger continuum of harm.

Part IV: Modern Manifestations and Critical Debates

4.1 The Carceral State and Mass Incarceration

The United States has seen a more than 450% increase in its prison population since 1980, even as the crime rate has steadily declined. This phenomenon is not coincidental but is a direct manifestation of the logic described by Gilmore's theory of organized abandonment. In California, for example, African Americans and Latinos comprise two-thirds of the incarcerated population, a result of punitive justice policies like the "three strikes" law. This disproportionate incarceration rate is inextricably linked to the systematic disinvestment in communities of color, where a compromised social infrastructure is replaced by the presence of police and prisons.

Part V: Synthesis and Conclusion

5.1 A Comparative Analysis of Power Frameworks

The philosophical and political frameworks of Agamben, Mbembe, and Gilmore represent a powerful and interconnected lineage of critical thought. While each theorist offers a distinct lens through which to analyze power, they all build upon a shared intellectual foundation, revealing the mechanisms through which populations are governed through the administration of life and death. The following table provides a comparative summary of their key ideas:

Theoretical Framework	Core Premise	Primary Locus of Power	Key Concepts	Example Applications
Giorgio Agamben's Biopolitics	Sovereign power is fundamentally rooted in the production of a "bare life" that can be killed with impunity.	The juridical-political order; the state of exception.	Zoe vs. Bios, Homo Sacer, State of Exception, Inclusive Exclusion.	The Nazi T4 program, Guantanamo Bay, refugee camps.
Achille Mbembe's Necropolitics	Sovereign power is exercised not by managing life but by controlling and administering death, particularly for racialized populations.	Militarized and colonial spaces; "death-worlds" and "deathscapes."	Necropower, Necropolitics, Death-worlds, Necrocapitalism, Racism as a primary driver.	US-Mexico border, occupied territories, refugee camps.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore's Organized Abandonment	The expansion of carceral control is a materialist response to economic crises and social surpluses, enacted through the intentional disinvestment in communities.	The political economy of racial capitalism; geography and land use.	Organized Abandonment, Racial Capitalism, Prison-Industrial Complex, The "Prison Fix."	Mass incarceration in the US, inner-city ghettos, defunded social services.

This comparative view highlights the distinct contributions of each thinker. Agamben's focus on the juridical and the paradox of the state of exception provides a universal, formal framework for understanding sovereign violence. Mbembe expands this by grounding the logic of power in a racialized and geographic context, revealing how the control of death operates on a global scale. Finally, Gilmore provides the crucial materialist analysis, explaining how the production of bare life is not just a philosophical concept but a produced outcome of specific economic choices and the logic of racial capitalism. Together, these frameworks offer a multi-dimensional and comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of contemporary power.

5.2 Critiques and Contradictions

While these frameworks are invaluable, they are not without their critics. Agamben's work has been critiqued for its perceived formalism and its failure to adequately account for the historical and sociopolitical figures of the slave and the barbarian, who embody a reduction to bare life that is tied to economic exploitation and racial subjugation. His transhistorical approach has also been questioned for ignoring the "contingently dependent" nature of power relations in favor of a foundational, unchanging logic.

Mbembe's work, while widely influential, has faced its own critiques. Some scholars have found his writing to be "impenetrable" and "confounding," with a tendency toward poetic digressions that can obscure the central argument. Others have pointed out a philosophical tension between his analysis of the "rot inherent in democracy" and his ultimate call for a "new global ethos of democracy," a contradiction that he does not fully reconcile.

Gilmore's work, while generally well-received, presents its own set of challenges. Her analysis of "organized abandonment" requires scholars and activists to look beyond the most extreme examples of violence and to see how the "seemingly mundane operations of the carceral state"—such as land-use decisions or budget allocations—are part of a continuum of violence. This requires a significant shift in perspective and a readiness to critique the limitations of liberal ideologies and reforms.

5.3 The Enduring Logic of Sovereign Violence

The analysis presented in this report leads to a clear and chilling conclusion: the logic of reducing human life to a killable status, so terrifyingly evident in the Nazi T4 program, is not a historical relic. Instead, it persists today in various forms of necropolitical violence and organized abandonment. The Nazi T4 program was a biopolitical laboratory where a population, deemed "unworthy of life," was stripped of all political and legal protections and subjected to sovereign violence with impunity. The conceptual tools provided by Agamben allow for a deep understanding of this process, revealing the aporia at the heart of sovereign power.

However, to understand the modern pervasiveness of this logic, it is essential to move beyond a singular theoretical lens. Mbembe's necropolitics explains how this logic is racialized and spatialized, manifesting in the "death-worlds" of militarized borders and refugee camps. Gilmore's organized abandonment provides a materialist explanation, connecting the production of bare life to the economic and political choices of racial capitalism.

Ultimately, understanding these theoretical frameworks is not merely an academic exercise; it is a critical necessity for diagnosing the subtle and overt forms of state-sanctioned violence in the contemporary world. These theories provide the language and analytical tools to see how power continues to operate not just by governing the social body, but by creating and governing the body that has been stripped of its social existence, the life that has been rendered "bare."

thelastonethousandandonenights.wordpress.com

Giorgio Agamben – Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life ...