What is the true nature of society?

Political action is often taken to realize some sort of ultimately ideal social reality. We have values such as universal freedom and universal justice, which pertain to future social realities that have these ideas realized within them. But what is the true nature of society? What, fundamentally, is a society? Might this be the main question for a political project that is not as influenced by values?

Let us assume that the truest version of a society is a just or free society. We might think this is what a society truly ought to be like, and that unjust and unfree societies are not just bad from a value-based perspective, but also imperfect from an objective standpoint. Now, it is up to us in our political projects to go towards this society. For this move towards it, a single project is possible, but within that project the following two points are in order: 

First, if a completely just or free society is the true nature of society, then it has to be eternally just and free, it has to withstand any and all pressures towards injustice and repression that may arise whenever they arise. For the true version of society is by definition an untouched, pristine, society. 

Second, there needs to be a quite literal move, brought about by politics, away from the imperfect, here-and-now, societies that we do have, the ones in which unjust powers exploit and repress the population. 

To situate both these points as one: there has to occur a movement from the current status quo societies we do have towards something far more enduring, unconditioned and, in some objective respect, perfect.

But the problem with this kind of project is this: that when we do move towards something in the hopes that it will be unconditioned, that imperfect reality we have left behind, or abandoned, itself becomes unconditioned after our grasp leaves it precisely because our grasp has left it. When our grasp comes off of one reality, and another reality is progressed towards, that reality which is ungrasped from appears far more unconditioned than the reality that we go towards. So, in some respects, whatever is left behind by us is or appears as the truest version of society. In a curious way, it occupies the position of how society actually ought to be, no matter how arbitrary its actual nature, contents and values. This is because the grasp plays a major part in something's being conditioned in the first place, for the grasp itself conditioned it, and as soon as our grasp comes off, it is not longer as conditioned.

So the question here is: should we strive for some unconditioned reality at all, if whatever we leave behind in the process will seem even more unconditioned? To put it in political terms, are calls for a just society to be given much merit if, at least on this count, it will never be as unconditioned as the social reality we let go of? Our own implication, when we strive for a better political reality, has to be highlighted, at the least. For if the just society will never be as unconditioned as the society we left behind, that is, if the 'ultimate' society is always going to be the one behind us, the ungrasped and abandoned one, then who is to say that that just society will even be enduring and withstand all external forces? 

Can anything ever approach the ideal perfection of something that we have ungrasped from, which becomes perfect precisely because we ungrasped from it? Will there be a kind of truth to any new society we get to, such that it can be as unconditioned, and as perfect an image of a true society as the one we leave behind? The true society, then, is not based on any objective values or content, but on the subjective moves we ourselves make regarding our societies. At the least, here we find that there is no alignment between a just and free society and a 'true' society. Truth, ultimately, is subjective.