A journalist had the idea of getting Noam Chomsky and José Mujica together for a conversation on what has to happen for humanity to survive the 21st century well. Noam Chomsky is an intellectual and linguist and José Mujica was the Uruguayan president who lived as a pauper while bringing social reforms to the country. Honestly, I went into this thinking they were going to suggest the impossible, and the idealistic solutions to our social and environmental problems probably are impossible the way we're going now. Basically, you need leaders who are concerned more with the people and the world we live in than power and money. And we need to switch to respecting the land as much as many indigenous groups have.

I think this is more of an intellectual exercise in what-if rather than a real road map to the future. They seem to like the idea of direct democracy on a smaller city-sized scale, which makes more sense there than anywhere else. And they kept talking about anarchy in work environments, but their definition is less one of chaos and more of an environment of collaboration rather than one person being the end-all decider. I'd agree with that but think a better word is merited here.

This ended up being more honest with reality than I assumed it would be. I went into this thinking these guys were going to suggest some form of far-left communism, but I think they see the pitfalls of giving all the power to the government. But unbridled capitalism certainly isn't serving everyone well unless you're at the top. In the end, it seems that their hope is that the young people will rise up from behind their screens and do something about the messed up world they've inherited.

How do we survive the 21st century? Heck if I know.

José Mujica, former president of Uruguay and the most rational political leader in the world, died in May at 90. Noam Chomsky, the most respected intellectual in the world, was felled by a stroke, and hangs on in Brazil, but can contribute nothing more. Saúl Alvídrez, a thoughtful young interviewer and activist, had been working with them for years (since 2016), resulting in this book called Surviving the 21st Century. It is the printed version of a companion film documentary he has been raising money for. The book is a tightly edited collection of quotes and conversations among the three of them. It is extremely quotable, straight-shooting - as readers should expect - and invaluable with insights as to how things work, how to look at them, and how to live in the mess Man continues to brew. The book covers the gamut from freedom to fascism, life and love. Yes, life and love.

Let me say that Noam Chomsky has always been extraordinarily generous with his time. In 1984 I called his office to see if he would come on my phone-in radio show for two hours, he agreed immediately, and gave me his home phone number to call before the show began. Numerous books have been published by activists whom Chomsky agreed to meet with, and helped refine their insights into their own activism. The president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, visited him in the hospital in Sao Paulo after his stroke, and told Chomsky in no uncertain terms that he changed Lula’s whole life, right as a teenager. Now here as are some sage viewpoints from two veterans of the equality wars, after 90 some years apiece fighting the good fight.

For once, Chomsky talks a little about himself. He sold his first political magazine article when he was in grade four. By age 12, his parents were allowing him to travel to New York (from Philadelphia) so he could check out the left and anarchist bookshops there. His first overwhelming impressions of doom came from the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s, when the stark violence and murderous proclivities of the Fascists under Franco made it appear to him that all was lost for mankind. For him it was “the end of any hope of freedom in Spain and seemed like an inexorable spread of true terror.” Something to think about as the USA tilts to the police state the extreme Right in 2025.

Mujica was always of the compassionate left as well. He was educated in the USSR. He spent 14 years in Uruguayan prisons, seven without even a mattress on the floor or a book to read. He held onto his ideals throughout, and famously refused to live in the presidential palace when he was swept into power. He took public transport (second class) everywhere he could, and drove his blue 1987 VW Beetle himself everywhere else. When he retired, he went back to raising flowers on his farm outside Montevideo, receiving inquiring activists and wellwishers for decades more.

But until Alvídrez put them together in a room, Mujica and Chomsky had never met.

But they both knew absolutely everything about each other. They got along like they had never been apart.

Their insights are wide-ranging. Mujica understands the left will always be attacked and torn down by the capitalists, so the battle is neverending. And now and then, there are breakthroughs, where equality appears on the horizon, helpful programs are implemented, and sometimes, even Athenian democracy hints at its potential return. There is always hope but always the need for action as well.

Chomsky’s message is, and always has been, to think for yourself. There is no one who can help young people feeling lost, not knowing how to shake the feeling of doom or give focus to their life. He continues to want everyone to read widely and deeply, because there are no secrets. All the evil is right there, in plain sight. It is reported daily. The fascists are always open with what they want to do to whom, and how. They like to call it transparency. For most, it is a horror they work to ignore.

And both of them are all about joining groups. They both say striking out on your own is not the best route to success. That getting input from others, sharing your own ideas, and having help or giving help to others in an organization is the best way to make a dent in the disaster. This applies most clearly in the existential issue of our time, climate change, they both say. The more groups there are applying pressure, the more progress is made (outside the USA). Capitalism, they say, is an anti-social culture. So it is critical to know that and strive to overcome it, by being social.

Both men attack the fetish of national security. It is never about the people: “(I)t is not about the security of the population, which is at most a marginal concern: rather, it is about security for systems of power, state and private.” For the fascists, elections are an annoying little distractions when they must pretend to listen to their constituents.

Chomsky is stunned by what has become of the Republican Party. He quotes Eisenhower on his concerns for Americans, and today no one would even guess it was a Republican saying those things. “…(T)he Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history… Never in history has there been such a powerful organization dedicated to policies that will lead to the destruction of organized human life.” Chomsky says that’s the most shocking thing he has ever had to say.
Looking forward from 2016, Mujica foresaw the pullback of democracy: “No, there is going to be a major retreat now. I’m talking about labor stability, labor rights, the welfare state, etc., and this is already being seen all over the world. The pullback in Europe is strong as well. So, I think we are going to see a period of great global upheaval. Macron’s reforms in France are not going to be easy either.”
Mujica was a student of Athenian Democracy. For a city-state of 200,000, it had 7000 in public service. They were chosen by lots, required to serve. The head of the treasury was an exception, because he had to be rich enough to afford to pay back any funds missing due to embezzlement. Direct democracy meant Athenians had to vote and participate in their nation. It brought all manner of voices to decisions and policies. Politics was not a lifelong profession, where the senile hold all the power. Democracy required everybody’s input. For Mujica, “We (today) don’t know how much wealth we are losing by not letting people participate.”
We are privileged to have both these fine minds in the same room at the same time albeit spread over a period of six years from 2016 to 2022. Well worth reading.

David Wineberg