I never said strive for change is useless, I in effect said that strive for change based on unreal social constructs is useless. Think of Rousseau, who taught us that there is no such thing as the Right of the Strongest, there is, in nature, only the Might of the Strongest. Right, in the sense of Law, is a human construct, a set of rules, norms and values that we agree upon through negotiations, preferably in such a way that each and everyone of gets an equal piece of the pie. Right does not descend down from heaven, neither is it given in nature. But this is not how most people think. Instead, they see themselves and their outlook on life as the center of the Universe and they think: "my position is right and the others' position is wrong, and the only way of making this a better world is if we do things my way." I repeat: 99.999% of the worlds population has this attitude, even the most enlightened or woke liberal humanist person. Best of all: Socionics proves this.
And this is exactly why the world will never change, and remains locked into the endless cycle of Samsara. Because every change just comes down to moving around the pawns a bit. Human kind will not escape this cycle of samsara, it is only individual people that can escape the cycle. But those who really do, pay a price: they set themselves apart from the rest of humanity.
This relativism of mine is, contrary to what you think, not a problem, it is THE only way out. My way out is saying: my way is not the right way, neither is yours. Or: yours is totally different than mine, but just as good or bad. Lets negotiate on how to organize society. But like I said, it is not going to happen, the world is locked into Samsara. Human kind usually chooses Might over Right.
ETA: I would like to add one more thing: if you buy a chocolate bar in a supermarket, do you ask yourself if there perhaps is anyone in the world who has suffered in order for you to be able to buy this bar for only 50 cents? I can assure you: I do. Now I rest my case.