[Druspills]

"Social activism", at least where I come from, is an act of aggression in the sense that the activist/group seeks to force their views on others. From my readings, I doubt that the Buddha would have been a social activist.

I can tell about this issue. During my university years I was a devoted social activist of the left political party. What I found there? Very aggressive people with a huge anger against the others because they were told about ideal humankind; manipulative political leaders; blindness people imposing their views looking to "demolish the system"; followers looking to have social advantages in their lives and many more things like that that only adds to humankind madness... I didn't like to work through anger and aggression.

Can any sort of lasting social change occur without a change in individuals? I think not, but I doubt that most social activist groups are concerned with gently changing individuals' perceptions/philosophy.

Well not all is lost in promoting social changes so to behave as a better society. After the sad experience in social activism I joined a research group working in the field of Human Ecology developing Participatory Systems. They are softcore systems to promote the needed changes without any kind of idealism, out of anger and hate about "the others" and out of the need of corrupted political leaders and their corrupted followers. People learn how to work together with everybody and everybody is represented in the process. Leadership is situational and it is given through the process. This systems are working well in a small scale but they are getting momentum and can be integrated. Good experiences are given mostly in underdeveloped countries.

But this are Participatory Systems, not Buddhism (understood as the teachings of the historical Buddha).