''What to do about it'' (creating social/political change)

[Sneakgab]

This is not to say that debate on this forum is meaningles; afterall, before deciding what to do and how to do it, one should first decide what to do.

But... whether or not you agree with goverment/powerholders, policies, decisions,e.t.c, is there any way to actually do anything about it?

Of course, there is always the personal response. You can take steps to reduce harm to you're self from a decison for example. The thread regarding a certain corp's cutbacks on it's highest paid members for example brought to light the fact that there are ways for these workers to generate job security for themselves (as mentioned by dust scout for the curious). Another example of a ''personal'' response is to be non-rasict and help an opressed racial group of a hypothetical goverment.

These examples refer respectively to protecting oneself from powerholders and to protecting, holding and pursuing one's ideals despite the society and powerholders around said indivual.

None of these actions actually alter society (generally speaking) or powerholders in any though. For example, defending one self from being fired by said company does not change legislation or action from the general populace against said company.

Finally, it is important to note that indivual ''personal'' action is generally insignificant on the large scale of society/the country/ whatever. In the past, it has been the ''mobilization of the masses'' in one or another that has brought change via revolution, protests,e.t.c or the change generated by powerholders.

With this in mind, the question posed is: Maybe you like it, maybe you don't,  but what can you do that will affect the society/populace or powerholders that often effectively hold sway of fore-mentioned populace that collectively (ie: populace and powerholders) endorse, allow to continue and/or actively pursue said policiy/decision.

In summary; regardless of morality/correctness (or whatever measure you impose to decide what you like or dislike), what you can do about it?

Take note: the above is NOT a rhetorical question and I myself havn't constructed a view on thisd yet. Instead this thread is meant to be a hopefully interesting topic on which to inspire discussion and perhaps lead to some interesting awnsers and views for me :D :P and hopefully others to enjoy.

Basically, feel free to pick apart definitions or anything in this post you disagree with if it helps.

ie: I'm just throwing a ''thought'' out there for you guys to discuss.

Personally, I hope that there do exist some effective ways nowadays (as apparently existed in the past) to alter one's society and goverment through something other than  minor personal choices. Of course, things have changed since then and powerholders have more modern techniques on holding their power (eg: propoganda that is not obviously propoganda :D)

[MrFlibble]

Hmm. I'd say there's usually very little a single human can do about the environment, natural and social alike. I think creating a group of activists is a viable option for introducing social changes. Going into politics, joining a party with views that are close to yours. Right now I can't imagine anything else that would have any effect on conditions within a society ???

[Dante]

Why change society? Society will change regardless, perhaps for the better and perhaps for the worse. What matters is not society, it is the interests of the individual. This isn't 'the individual' in the common generic sense, whereby everyone is made to feel special because someone used the singular, this is the individual in a purely selfish sense. What I want is what's good for me, just as what you want should be what's good for you and what Jim McSomebody wants is what's good for him. Italicised pronouns for the win.

In other words, 'society' should not be your primary concern. Don't try to chance society, because it's a lot of work and the job will never be finished anyway. Instead, find a way to realise what you want, and let society deal with that. After all, the best way to lead is by demonstration, no?

[Sneakgab]

''What matters is not society, it is the interests of the individual''

Well, society affects the interests of the indivual. If a force, such as society or goverment takes away the freedom of an indivual to do something for example, then society has affected the interests of the indivual.

So even though society may or may not be directly important, it is indirectly important if the indivual is important. Ie: it should be indirectly important to you.

''just as what you want should be what's good for you and what Jim McSomebody wants is what's good for him''

Well you don't need me to tell you not to make grand unproven statements, Edrico or like probably would otherwise :D.

1: Stating what SHOULD be good for ''you'' (ie: everybody) seems to be a bit overbearing doesn't it? why is it ''better'' for all to be concerned only with their own interests, saying such a thing at least requires a definition of what is ''good''/''better''.

Also, I hope you are not making the assumption that everybody is in truth only selfishly interested in things that serve themselves best. Practically every action taken can be said to possibly have a selfish element, but to prove that actions are only taken selfishly would require some way to test all morals for all actions with 100% accuracy. Then, even that would not be a proof. If we have an equation that the sum of odd numbers = the amount of numbers squared (for example), even if it was positively tested to be true for a million values this would not be proof that the general statement is correct (regardless of whether or not it obviously is). In the same way, testing a million intentions and having them all come up as being selfish does not prove that ALL intentions are selfish.

However, this is admittedly a digression, and not one I will  be able to comment on for awhile (very limited internet access).

But the point is: changing society has interests for the indivual and even were this not so, since not all individuals are selfish some indivuals could therefore possibly still be interested in changing society for non-selfish reasons.

In summary, this post has a point as there may be some who interested in the ''how'' of changing society  :P ;D

(Even if no one wants to change society/goverment, this is supposed to be a discussion for those interested in the nature of ''how'' to society regardless of whether their is a reason to or not)

Judging from the ''dislike'' sections in the ''discussing you're nation'' thread, it seems safe to assume that there are some who would like (in some way) govermental/national change.

[Dante]

''What matters is not society, it is the interests of the individual''

Well, society affects the interests of the indivual. If a force, such as society or goverment takes away the freedom of an indivual to do something for example, then society has affected the interests of the indivual.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that the individual must change society, though that is an option. Others might be for the individual to escape society, or adapt to it, or live within it without being part of it. The point being that 'changing society' is not the only approach to a social dilemma.

So even though society may or may not be directly important, it is indirectly important if the indivual is important. Ie: it should be indirectly important to you.

The key word here is 'indirect.' Society is important only in how it effects the me in the equation, not as an end in itself.

''just as what you want should be what's good for you and what Jim McSomebody wants is what's good for him''

Well you don't need me to tell you not to make grand unproven statements, Edrico or like probably would otherwise :D.

1: Stating what SHOULD be good for ''you'' (ie: everybody) seems to be a bit overbearing doesn't it? why is it ''better'' for all to be concerned only with their own interests, saying such a thing at least requires a definition of what is ''good''/''better''.

You don't seem to have quite got my point. I'm not dictating what would be good for people, I'm saying that they should care about what they find is good for them. Another way of phrasing, which I probably should have used before, is that people should try to get what they want, rather than what society wants from them.

It's the difference between saying "Society wants me to be a productive worker, so I'm going to get a job" and saying "I want money, so I'll get a job." Society wants a worker. Screw society, I just want money.

Also, I hope you are not making the assumption that everybody is in truth only selfishly interested in things that serve themselves best. Practically every action taken can be said to possibly have a selfish element, but to prove that actions are only taken selfishly would require some way to test all morals for all actions with 100% accuracy. Then, even that would not be a proof. If we have an equation that the sum of odd numbers = the amount of numbers squared (for example), even if it was positively tested to be true for a million values this would not be proof that the general statement is correct (regardless of whether or not it obviously is). In the same way, testing a million intentions and having them all come up as being selfish does not prove that ALL intentions are selfish.

Yes yes, blah blah, you can theorise about the essential fluffiness of humanity some other time. I'm not saying that all actions are selfish, just that if you concern yourself too much with changing society then you're spreading effort that could be concentrated to greater effect on a much smaller scale, i.e. the individual.

You want to know 'how' to change society? There are plenty of methods, all of which have historical precedent. Get into politics, force your ideals onto other people. You get to use more force with religion, but people are less credulous. Go into economics, manipulate the social structure by clever use of money. Or on the other end of the spectrum, join loud yet largely ignored protests and write letters to the people who actually wield some measure of power. Assassinate people, or kill yourself in a large and public ceremony designed to attract attention to whatever cause you are trying to promote. Make public speeches, write articles in newspapers, record everything you see that is wrong and publish it for the world to see. Travel all over, spread your message. Get your cause into schools, get 'em while they're young and impressionable. Incite rebellion, slander your foes, blackmail their friends, convince others of your point of view and send them out into the world to do all of the above. Find yourself a martyr, make yourself a martyr, take hold of the media and run with it, get yourself attention, broadcast, read and seen. All of these are methods by which to attract attention, once you have attention all you need to do is control it.

Alternatively, start a plague that kills off a third of the working classes. The remainder will be in short supply and will thus be able to sue for better conditions. It happened once, could work again.

[nemafakei]

Communicate. Organise. Engage. Build.

Modern individualistic capitalism likes to keep us in our cubicles, likes to keep us isolated. Isolated, we are weak, and the system is strong. Even by chatting on this forum, we are building bridges, resisting a little. Not enough, though. We need to group together with those around us, in our workplaces, our schools, and our communities, we need to discuss the issues that affect us, we need to seek alternatives. And where problems can't be solved locally, we need to link up with other communities. We need to engage with existing structures, not because they're necessarily legitimate, but because they're powerful, and there is no democracy where ordinary people do not engage with structures of power. Finally, we need to build our own structures, based around the needs of the many, structures which will replace the current plutocracy.

The biggest fight is getting people to realise how much we need to interact with each other. You can't do it on your own, but a small step in the right direction is better than inaction or retreat.

[Sneakgab]

''Indeed. But that doesn't mean that the individual must change society, though that is an option. Others might be for the individual to escape society, or adapt to it, or live within it without being part of it. The point being that 'changing society' is not the only approach to a social dilemma''

I never said it was the only approach, it's just that that particular approach happens to be the topic of this thread.

''Another way of phrasing, which I probably should have used before, is that people should try to get what they want, rather than what society wants from them.''

Well, that is quite a different story. I can definetely agree with that; I could care less what ''society'' wants, since society is just an abstract term (almost a kind of trick) probably imposed by a group for their own (probably) selfish reasons. Either that or it simply just ''happpened''. The point is that the true reason for changing society and it's impositions is in fact the good of the indivualspeople that society affects.

''Yes yes, blah blah, you can theorise about the essential fluffiness of humanity some other time. I'm not saying that all actions are selfish, just that if you concern yourself too much with changing society then you're spreading effort that could be concentrated to greater effect on a much smaller scale, i.e. the individual.''

I guess that is also possibly true, that regardless of the ''lot'' (ie: his own lot, or everybody's lot) that a person wants to improve, he may be better able to improve said lot by simply going about it himself as such rather than trying to change society or goverment. Which is better is of course circumstancial. However, wether inciting societal change is relatively efficient or not is not the point of this post; the point of this post is the hopefully interesting discussion of the fore-mentioned wide-scale change and relevant topics such as why (for example) people in horrendous situations (such as thos liveing in the notorious states like Saudi-Arabia) who might be able to change goverment instead sit around being slaughteredexploited (this has the obvious awnser: fear, but since it's only an example that's not the point :P)

It's not like I can say that those involved haven't contributed to that topic though, what with Dante's method list and all:D, so I'm not complaining.