Imperialists FEAR Real Democracy. Mexican Author Explains How To SCARE Them Harder. | Saúl Alvídrez

## A Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy The recorded exchange with Saúl Alvídrez confronts a central, unsettling thesis: the political forms we call “democracy” no longer match the scale or the stakes of our collective problems. Voting every four or six years has become a ritual that masks concentrated decision-making. Decisions about environmental collapse, nuclear danger, and runaway technological power are effectively in the hands of a narrow elite. That mismatch — between existential threats and dispersed citizen power — is the animating concern of Alvídrez’s journey and the connective tissue of the project that brought Noam Chomsky and José “Pepe” Mujica together. It is an argument about legitimacy: if the public cannot influence the systems that most determine its future, legitimacy frays and the risk of catastrophic mismanagement grows. Alvídrez frames this as generational urgency. Millennials and centennials, he suggests, inherit the consequences of past policy and the new instruments of control: algorithms, surveillance infrastructures, corporate concentration. What matters is not rhetorical left-right posturing but a structural question: who decides? If democratic institutions are captured by plutocratic interests, they become instruments of sustainability’s opposite. The conversation insists that recognizing this capture is the first step; the second is reimagining institutions so decision-making returns — meaningfully — to those affected. ## Lessons from Chomsky and Mujica Alvídrez’s book and documentary project hinge on an intellectual pairing that surprised him as much as it illuminates broader themes. From Chomsky he extracts the imperative to think for oneself — to interrogate official narratives and decode how power shapes knowledge. From Mujica he distills resilience and moral economy: that success can be measured in the capacity to rise after defeat, and that politics, at its best, is the practice of living well with others under constraints. These are complementary habits of mind. Chomsky’s relentless skepticism toward institutional speech and media architecture offers tools to diagnose why citizens are denied effective voice. Mujica’s lived example — guerrilla, prisoner, austere head of state — gives a kind of ethical ballast: politics need not be performed as spectacle or enrichment. Together, they make two linked claims: first, that domination is often invisible, embedded in the routines and technical systems of governance; second, that practices of humility and recuperative politics are necessary corrective virtues. Alvídrez uses their encounter not as a nostalgic appeal to personalities, but as a laboratory for ideas about how to reconfigure power. ## Democracy Beyond Elections A central contention in the discussion is that democracy is conceptually far richer than periodic elections. Formal suffrage and representative institutions are indispensable but insufficient. The model most people inherit imagines a division: citizens elect and officials govern. Alvídrez and the figures he studies insist on a more granular distribution of power: public deliberation that informs binding decisions, institutional checks that are not merely theatrical, and everyday practices whereby people exercise influence over things that materially affect them. This opens a critical reassessment of what democratic transformation looks like. It does not merely mean more turnout or better campaign regulation; it means designing mechanisms for ongoing collective decision-making. Switzerland’s referenda are invoked as one example — an imperfect but instructive model of direct law-making — and the conversation pushes beyond it. The real question is how to scale deliberative practices so they are inclusive, informed, and resistant to capture. If the electorate is to decide on issues — not just personalities — safeguards are required: transparent information ecosystems, anti-disinformation norms, equitable access to participation, and institutional designs that prevent majorities from oppressing minorities. The aim is not to abolish representative systems overnight, but to rebalance accountability and expand loci of authority. ## Decentralization, Technology, and New Commons One of the sharper provocations in Alvídrez’s account is the dual nature of technological change. Digital networks are simultaneously the infrastructure of elite control and the medium of possible decentralization. Crowdfunding, participatory platforms, and open-source coordination have already altered how projects are financed and communities organize. Alvídrez sees these as kernels of a different political economy: decentralized modes of decision-making, where people can be consulted en masse in short order and form voluntary, cooperative arrangements for public goods. But technology is not neutral: its default architectures favor concentration unless we intentionally design otherwise. The conversation draws a line between proprietary platforms that accumulate data and power, and publicly governed or commons-based digital tools that distribute authority. If the goal is to expand democratic control, then digital public goods — interoperable, transparent, and community-driven systems — become necessary infrastructure. These tools can enable new forms of deliberation and binding decision-making, but they must be accompanied by social norms and legal guardrails that prevent manipulation and exclusion. Alvídrez’s appeal to anarchist philosophy — understood here as distrust of authority rather than a license for chaos — becomes relevant: decentralization must be institutionalized in ways that produce stability, fairness, and durability. ## Economic Alternatives and Cooperative Practice Political reform, in this account, cannot be decoupled from economic reorganization. If a tiny set of actors control the economy, then redistributing political power alone will not suffice; economic structures will continually reassert dominance. That is why Alvídrez foregrounds cooperatives and worker-owned enterprises as practical experiments in democratic production. These arrangements internalize democratic norms into the workplace: who owns the means of production, who shares the surplus, how priorities (profit, sustainability, welfare) are settled. Cooperativism is not a panacea, but it is a field of practice where democratic habits can be learned and scaled. Cooperatives distribute risk and reward; they make collective deliberation a daily necessity. Embedding cooperative frameworks into public procurement, social finance, or municipal economies can create incentives for broader adoption. The conversation implies a two-track strategy: political institutions that legitimize collective decision-making, and economic institutions that make those decisions meaningful by reshaping who benefits from production and who has a stake in sustainability. ## Reimagining Institutions: From Process to Participation Alvídrez’s project urges attention to institutional design. Democratic renewal must be procedural as well as cultural. Processes that expand participation — deliberative assemblies, participatory budgeting, citizens’ juries, citizens-initiated lawmaking — must be integrated into legal architectures in ways that cannot be casually overridden by concentrated interests. That requires constitutional thinking: what rights and mechanisms secure ongoing public control over fundamental decisions about environment, technology, and security? How do we protect public goods like clean air, water, and algorithmic fairness from privatization and commodification? The conversation points to experimentation as a civic task. No single blueprint is offered; instead, a pluralist approach is recommended: try reforms in varied institutional settings, evaluate outcomes, scale successes, and iterate. That is a pragmatic, empiricist democratic ethics: design small, test, refine, and embed what works. It rejects fatal

Imperialists FEAR Real Democracy And How To SCARE Them Harder. | Saúl Alvídrez Today I’m talking to the Author, Activist, and Film Maker, Saúl Alvídrez. Born and raised in Mexico, Saúl went on a journey through South America at the age of 24, during which he was not only thinking a lot about the world, but also met two fascinating characters: Noam Chomsky and José Mujica. One being the great US intellectual, the other a former President of Uruguay, from whom he learned so much about the politics necessary to survive the 21st century. Saul's Book: In Spanish: "Chomsky & Mujica: Sobreviviendo al siglo XXI" https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Chomsky-Mujica- Sobreviviendo-Surviving-Century/dp/8419399760 In English: “Chomsky & Mujica: Surviving the Twenty First Century” https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/782339/surviving-the-21st- century-by-noam-chomsky-and-jose-mujica/ In German: "Chomsky & Mujica: Überleben im 21. Jahrhundert" https://www.amazon.de/Chomsky-Mujica-Überleben-21-Jahrhundert/dp/386489476X Saúl's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/saulalvidrezr Correction: Saul‘s kick starter project has already ended. #M3 I think that especially as millennials and centennials, we should be thinking about the concept of decentralization. The digital realm is actually very open to that. We can ask anything to an entire nation in 30 minutes, maybe. So the idea to decentralize power and to integrate cooperation for common ends is exactly the point. Actually, in terms of philosophy, it's also the point of anarchism. Because sometimes people think that anarchism is total chaos and absolute violence, but it's something very different. #M2 Hello everybody, this is Pascal from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking to the author, activist, and filmmaker Saúl Alvídrez. Born and raised in Mexico, Saúl went on a journey through South America at the age of 24, during which he was not only thinking a lot about the world but also met two fantastic and fascinating characters, Noam Chomsky and José Mujica—one being, of course, the great US intellectual, the other a former president of Uruguay. To make sense of this, and his experiences, he wrote a fascinating book entitled "Chomsky and Mujica: Surviving the 21st Century." This is what we want to talk about today. So, Saúl, welcome. #M3 Hi, Pascal. Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm very glad to be here. -- 1 of 13 -- #M2 I'm very glad to hear your story because you wrote this fantastic book that has now been translated into several languages. In German, it's now appearing with the Westend publishing company, right? It exists, you told me, in Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, of course, and English. And you met these two characters and interwove them with your own story, learning about the world. Can you tell us a bit about the two protagonists and, of course, the reason why you wrote this book? #M3 Sure. Well, let me begin with the second question. I began this kind of search for myself because of a very difficult political situation that I experienced in 2012 here in Mexico. After that, things in Mexico became very difficult politically for me, so I decided to travel south, to South America. I was there for almost six years, during the entire presidency of Enrique Peña Nieto. I felt an internal urgency to study a lot, and through that experience, I ended up studying a lot, particularly about Noam Chomsky and Pepe Mujica. I already knew about them, but I had never really studied or given them enough time. By the way, I was also very inspired by a third individual, Julian Assange. So I went to South America, as I said, studying a lot and also trying to find answers to some questions that I ended up with. As I told you, I had this political experience in Mexico as a student protester at the university. So I went to South America asking about the problems, especially those of my generation. I've been kind of worried since then about the idea that we are facing, or the idea that we will face or have in our hands, the most dangerous moment in human history. Why am I saying this? Because it has never occurred before that we have in front of us and in our hands not just one total catastrophe or civilization collapse threat, which is the nuclear one. It's also the ecological one and also maybe a third one that could be technological disruptions in ways that we can't even imagine right now. So with that worry in my head and in my heart, I was just studying a lot. And I found that Noam Chomsky and Pepe Mujica had very particular similarities and characteristics, and especially the idea that they were saying things that, despite the fact that both are very important figures in the international political left, I had never heard before. Some of their critiques or points about democracy were things I hadn't heard before, not from any other traditional politician. And it was the idea that to go and vote once every four or six years for who decides everything else is not a democracy. That is something very stupid to believe. And that's why Pepe, in particular, is very consistent in saying that we should be restarting the democracy of the Greeks in Athenian times. So, well, I found this coincidence in their discourse. And I also realized that they both have never been together before. So I thought that it would be amazing. And I don't know, it grew in me—the idea, or to be very cute, is what would happen if we were able to bring together these amazing guys that I admired the most. So that's how it begins. Yeah. -- 2 of 13 -- #M2 And how did you bring them together? I mean, Chomsky is, of course, in the US, and José Mujica, I suppose, was in Uruguay. I mean, how did you go about getting to know them? And then you actually brought them physically together, right? And then you had discussions. How did that happen? #M3 It has been an amazing experience. First, it all began at the beginning of 2017 or 2016. I was living in Ecuador by then, and I was so enthusiastic about the idea of getting these two figures together. So how could I get in touch with them? The first thing I did was go to the website of MIT, and there was Noam Chomsky's email address. So I wrote to him, and to my surprise, I don't know if it was the very next day or less than 48 hours later, I had his response, and I was amazed, of course. So we began to have some interaction via email, especially talking about my political experience in 2012 in Yo Soy 132, a political movement in which I was involved, and the reason why I had to leave the country. And at the same time, I was also trying to contact Mujica, but that was a very different case. I hadn't been able to reach him, not until I went to visit Noam Chomsky. So again, after six months of correspondence with Noam Chomsky, I went to MIT, and I had the opportunity to talk with him. I talked first about a communication project that has a very political aspect, which I actually talk about in the book, which is articulatory communication. This is kind of the direction of some development and research of digital technologies in order to bring people together to get informed and decide together. Anyways, I talked to him about that project. The fact that he was, also with Pepe, the two guys that I admire the most, and that I had the idea to bring them together in a documentary. And he said very gladly, "Yeah, of course." And let me tell you why I believe he immediately said yes. Because he and Pepe, and now I'm going to tell you how everything began with Pepe. Before I went to them, they already, of course, knew each other—not personally, but they had mutual admiration, definitely. And that was a very important thing in order for them to get together. So I went back to Ecuador in August. And since then, I have been also trying to reach Pepe. It was almost impossible. But in the end, I went back to Ecuador. I found a friend of Mujica, actually of Lucía. She is his wife. And I told him, look, I have been trying to reach Pepe without any success. I have been with Noam Chomsky right now. He told me that he would like to meet Pepe and develop this documentary. And he said, don't worry. He dialed some number and passed me the phone, and to my surprise, it was Lucía Topolansky, because I recognized her voice, you know. So, hi, Lucía, this is Saúl. I talked to her about everything that happened there at MIT with Chomsky, and two months later, no, a little bit more, on the 12th of January 2017, I went to visit Mujica, and again, I told him about my communication project. I told him about how much I not only admire him and Noam Chomsky, but also how much they have given -- 3 of 13 -- me, especially when I was going through a very difficult time in my life in order to know exactly what's my... my reason or my purpose in life. So it was also kind of not only a political but a philosophical search. That's why. So I talked for like two hours, two and a half hours with Pepe, an amazing conversation. He's very funny. He's amazing. Also Noam. And I told him about the documentary. He said yes. And in July of 2017, Noam Chomsky and Lucía Topolansky, his wife, went to visit Pepe Mujica and Lucía to spend a weekend together in Uruguay. And so then that's how the entire project began, the project to develop the documentary that we'll be finishing at the end of this year, and the book that was kind of like a preview that went out in 2023. In the documentary, I don't have any first-person participation. I mean, I don't actually participate in the documentary. I mean, the screen, of course, but in the book, I found the opportunity to share a bit more, not just about what I have learned and seen by meeting these amazing guys and by getting them together, but also why. Because, as I told you at the beginning, everything revolves around, I mean, in my worries, the idea of my generation and the responsibility of my generation. And I thought that if they were able to give me so much in order to find or redefine my purpose in life and to feel strong again, maybe they could do it with many other millennials and centennials. So I thought that the idea of the documentary might be the best device, if you will, to share it with the world. And we're working that way. #M2 It's fascinating how you were able to pull this off, well, you know, just how you did this. But the other thing also is that you, of course, wanted their input, right? And you wanted to bring them together in order to see the firework of intellectual activity, of an intellectual conversation between these two characters. And they are, just like you and me too, part of the left, right? Or what we define as the left, as the, you know, social... Not social... How do we define this part of the left? Kind of justice for the different layers of society, and we want to take care of people, we want to make sure that we jointly thrive and survive and do well and have also peace. This kind of humanistic approach to how society should be as opposed to what it is and how we are destroying ourselves and destroying our environment. What did you learn from them? What's the direction that the documentary and your book then take? #M3 Okay, let me give you three answers by trying to summarize what I believe is the main idea of Norm, of Pepe, and what I learned. As I was telling you, I was trying to understand the role, in particular, my particular role as part of this generation, what I learned for my generation—that would be the third question. At first, and again, this is my opinion, if I had to just choose one sentence or one idea of Pepe Mujica, it would be: the only success is to get up once you fall, because in the end, you will always find death. So the idea of success in Pepe, which remember he -- 4 of 13 -- was in the Tupamaros guerrilla. He spent more than 15 years in prison. He escaped twice. He had six bullet wounds. Then, when he became president, he mastered getting up again. And that's the main idea of Pepe