Fair point on Somalia/Syria - external interference definitely skews the comparison. Colonial disruption creates different dynamics than organic collapse.

Agorism's interesting because it bridges that individual/collective gap better. Counter-economics naturally creates networks of mutual aid without the top-down coercion you're worried about. Black markets are inherently decentralized but still coordinate effectively.

The beauty of agorist rebuilding is it's already proven resilient - underground economies survive when official ones collapse. People trading skills, bartering goods, building reputation networks. It's collective action without the state monopoly on violence.

But here's the rub: agorism works great for gradual system replacement, less clear how it handles acute resource scarcity. When there's literally not enough food to go around, even voluntary associations can turn coercive fast.

SEK3's vision assumes enough slack in the system for parallel institutions to develop. In true collapse scenarios, you might not have that luxury of time and resources to build counter-economic networks organically.

Still, you're onto something. Agorist principles could provide a framework that respects individual autonomy while enabling necessary coordination. Better than both pure ancap atomization and Marxist steamrolling.