Managing the U.S. “Social Cooperative”: Budarin

Once a Social Cooperative has been formed, two questions arise concerning its management: “Who will be the final authority?” and “What will be the basis for their decision-making?”

In authoritarian social cooperatives, the final authority will be vested in one person or a small sub-group of the members. In democratic social cooperatives, final authority will rest with the members. The American state is supposed to be democratic, but it is being run as if it was an authoritarian social cooperative, with one “Decider” enacting the agendas of small sub-groups of the population.

On what grounds will management decisions be made? That will be up to the final authority. Decisions can be made on the basis of religion, revelation, ideology, nepotism, pragmatic consideration, or some combination of these. A determining factor will be the purpose for which the social cooperative arose.

Reason demands that pragmatic considerations be foremost. After all, the purpose for combining into a Social Cooperative is not to turn around and dissolve it, but to create and maintain the desired benefits. Rational management of a Social Cooperative would therefore act so as to create and maintain the benefits for which it was founded. To downplay or disregard pragmatic considerations is to threaten the entire enterprise.

This is a further problem with the current U.S. administration: there are too many decisions being made on the bases of religion, ideology, and The Decider’s personal revelations. The danger of decision-making on such grounds, to the exclusion of pragmatic considerations, can be seen in the daily news. Far better it is to manage on the bases of experience, realities, and insights obtained through scientific inquiry. These are more likely to ensure the continued production of the desired benefits, and thus more likely to ensure the continued existence of the U.S. as a Social Cooperative.