This Is How & When The World Will Change

[Anonymous]

This Is How & When The World Will Change

Publised by : Socialist Center

Author: Paramjeet Singh

 

Often we hear from social activists and mass movement leaders “let us change the system.” Today, we are going to discuss a little bit about this “change” and the philosophy that deals with it. A ‘change’ is ideally thought to be sought to be brought into this world because it is the ideal case scenario. I mean we all say that lets make this world a better place to live. This statement inherently talks of ‘change’- a change from the existing current state of affairs to a better state of affairs. Now, if everyone wanted to change, then it would not have been a change; it would have been a transition. People would have changed without realizing it as a change or even without desiring it. A change only occurs if there is currently a difference or a divide in the society and people on either side of that line dividing the society are against each other qua a state of affairs that is favoring one side and is causing disadvantage to the other. Of these two sides, people on the side that is being disfavored by the current state of affairs will talk of change because they are not happy with it. In other words, the desire or the intention to change the current state of affairs itself signifies that some of us are not happy with it and want to change to some other state of affairs that, for us, will bring betterment – which is always represented by the other side that is being favored by the current state of affairs or any other state of affairs that will allow the people on the unhappy side come to a level that will make them feel equal to the people on the happy side. It is important to understand here that what is not good now for those who want to bring in the change is good now for those who do not want to bring in the change. If today suits you, you wouldn’t want to change a thing. But if you are not comfortable today, you would want to change it to a comfortable situation. What is good for someone is not good for another. Therefore, the definition of “the good” is relative. The color of change i.e. whether it is good or bad is determined by normative or conventional principles of the society. We all know that there are some things that are considered to be good and there are some things that are considered to be bad for the society. Mind you! What is good for the society does not at all determine what exists in the society. Rather, what is bad for the majority determines what the change will be about and what is likely to exist in the society. Without going into what is good or bad for the society, we should try to understand the underlying ideology in relation to what we are discussing right now. It implies that the change is not about good or bad; rather, it is about the desire to move from one set of affairs to another. In the context of realities of life, there exists inequality. There are those who have and are happy with the existing system because it allowed them to have and made it possible for them to continue having. These people, of course, do not want to change. Then, there are those who do not have and are not happy with the existing system because it exploited them in favor of those who have and doesn’t allow them to have. It is the latter who will want to change and come within the bracket that contains those who have. Some of the thinkers have not only floated but strongly advocated the idea that change is brought into the world to establish those set of circumstances that are considered to be good i.e. removal of inequality. Well, if you consider the removal of inequality to be an ideal set of circumstance, then let me tell you that it not the reason in essence that causes the change. It is those people who do not have now and want to have that cause the change. It is the desire to move across to the better off side of the line of equality that causes the change. This is how the inequality gets narrowed down. Change is going to happen because haves not want to have and not because everyone should have. It is this stage where the numbers of those ‘happy with now’ and those ‘not happy with now’ come into the picture. For there to be a change, the majority should comprise of those who are not happy now and the minority, of those who are happy with the present state of the world. This signifies inequality. The change will, therefore, be directed towards narrowing this gap or inequality. Removal of the inequality could become a byproduct or the result of the change but it cannot become the cause of the change. No doubt, many philosophers or thinkers often say that removal of inequality should be there. Well! It is not these principles or statements that result in the change. In fact, such statements go wasted or, at the most, become part of the literature or the subject matter of the likes of Nobel Peace Prize. In reality, inequality is cause of the change but removal of inequality can never be incentive or cause of the change.  The practicalities & realities of life would never allow the good to be there because it is the "good". The good can only be ushered into the world because the majority i.e. those people who are not happy with the current situation of life do not want their ‘bad’ to be there and they want the good for them too.

One more prerequisite for "change": the unhappy majority should have no hope that they can cross over the line to the side of happy minority. 

If the system gives you a hope that you might cross over the time from ‘those who do not have’ to ‘those who have’ not by “changing” the current state of affairs but by continuing to play your role in the existing system, then “change” will never occur. This “hope” has nothing to do with the proposition whether it will translate into reality one day or not; rather, it only pertains to fact that people keep thinking that a change will happen without there being a change.

Therefore, the need for those who have a bad life to have a better life for themselves will bring in a change and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that everyone should have a better life. 

[SocialistPunk]

Hi ParamjeetA little bit of advice. It would be helpful if you could break your posts up into paragraphs. As it stands now your long posts are laborious to read through.Paragraphs make it easier to digest chunks of information before moving on to the next paragraph and so on. They're also helpful for readers to be able to refer back and forth to various points in a written piece.If you take this bit of advice on board, it may help you to get your points across more effectively, hopefully leading to a profitable discussion.  

[Author]

Posts