I consider myself a proponent of parallelism, which I suppose agorism would be considered part of. The issue I find with it is two fold.
I'll expalin both briefly.
The first being that just moving outside of the current system doesn't solve any of the problems that have arose out of capitalism. Just living with your friends in the woods won't stop capitalism rampant destruction of the biosphere. You can't get away from the reality that we encompass.
The second being is it denies the interconnectedness that individuals have. Even if you manage to move away from society and build your parallel economy, you'll still be dependent upon the capitalist mode of production. The tools you bring with you would have been manufactured in the capitalist mode of production, etc.
All in all I find much of the Market oriented Anarchism to totally miss the point. If we don't challenge and change the superstructure of society directly, it won't change at all and Markets themselves are in large part of the reason why the planet is in such disarray.
Idk, maybe I'm arguing against a straw-man, but I hope I've conveyed my point articulately.
You made your points very well and we are on the same page (the same side is a bit daring to say this early haha), but I believe our differences are deeply rooted in our different views on accountability and personal responsibility, I will try and explain this to the best of my ability:
We can both recognize the horrors of the "cancer cities" in China and the absolute devastation this has on the environment where these cities puke out plastic crap that gets sold on apps like Wish, marketed to westerners that support this despicable concept through monetary means that oils the machinery.
It is my firm belief that you can preach all day to people about this kind of things, editing up a viral video for your facebook friends that show the terrible correlation between the bright green toilet-roll holder they bought as a funny joke for someones birthday is responsible for killing people through tumors, but the total disconnect of how global trade is networked will still be present and where their personal responsibility for the production is just "forget about it" levels of denial.
Sure, living in a community that is self-sustaining on ecological crops and green energy isn't solving the destruction of the biosphere (maybe on a micro level, but that is trivial in comparison) but it is also not supporting it directly - It is changing hearts over changing minds, because that is the path of less resistance.
I like what you said about the disconnection between consumers and the production process.
I also agree that propaganda only goes so far(I'm referring to the viral video concept you mentioned)
Here is my overall point. Making isolated agrarian towns will only go so far. Look at the tolstoy experiments in the UK. Sure they've lasted 100 years or so, the issue with them is their isolation. They never were affecting the super structure of society. I still support them in their efforts, but the idea will do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Instead I look to examples like Fred Hampton and The Black Panther Party. While short lived comparatively speaking (mainly due to Fred Hamptons' assassination) the black panther party drastically affected the material conditions of the poor in the communities.
They set up food banks, they set up free health clinics, they had their own community self defense and United street gangs to end the street violence.
Which is why Fred Hampton was killed by the FBI.
I look at the whole "none participation" idea you're presenting as problematic for two reasons.
The first being that the option to opt out isn't available to the poor and working classes. The second being that it is extremely individually centered, I don't mean that individuality is bad, but rather that when individuals are considered only in isolation it's a purely egotistical trip that you're going on.