Add new comment

I *think* deny energy = exodus. Turn on, tune in, drop out. For some reason the French (or wannabe-French) never use plain English. Exodus has different forms - back to the land, DIY culture, autonomous zones, squatting, skipping, off-grid, etc.

I think the insurrectionist objection would be: what's to stop the state just suppressing your attempts at exodus? For example, with the hippies they just started banning free festivals, banning squatting, using zoning/planning shit to sabotage dropping-out, using closed disposal units instead of dumpsters, etc. In a lot of countries, subsistence farming is being squeezed by agribusiness, often backed by violent statism or paramilitaries. If you wanna hold your sites of exodus you'll need to defend them, or at least have enough of a viable threat-capacity that the state thinks twice about repressing you. There's also the question of whether back-to-the-land is as viable for black people (given racism in rural America), people with disabilities, single mothers etc.

Personally I think exodus and insurrection supplement each other. The most effective insurrections start in liberated zones or places with more space to breathe. Rural Bolivia has seen some of the most impressive revolts of the last few decades for instance, and all the best guerrilla struggles have been rural too. Exodus doesn't *always* need insurrection. Often the state leaves things alone because they're too small, remote, or invisible to worry about. Often it has limited capacity to control lightly-populated areas. But the two go together quite well.