in your analysis of Shaolin in China.
True, the monks enjoyed, at times, Imperial patronage, but it's also true that at times they were persecuted. In fact, the (perhaps legendary) Bodhidarma, putative founder of true Shaolin (the martial and yogic aspects anyway) was rejected by the Emperor he met and basically "took it to the people" or at least the monks in the temples that were currently in place at that time. The monks also rejected his interpretation of Buddhism at first until he convinced them by his dedication that his way was best. That's another aspect of Buddhism that a lot of people don't quite understand. There is no "dogma". Even the Buddha himself said basically, "Try it, you'll like it, but if you don't then don't follow the Middle Way". It's experiential, in that you are free to reject the teachings if they don't work for you. And you won't go to "Hell" if you DO reject them.
Another MAJOR rejection of Shaolin by another Emperor a few centuries later led to the destruction of the temples and the exile of the monks from those temples over Buddhism itself and that very egalitarianism that you pass off as not important. Egalitarianism is NOT a tenet in feudalism which was the historical ruling system of that time in China. Ergo, that very egalitarianism WAS revolutionary for it's time, as was the philosophy of Buddhism.
Also the Boxer revolution which was a rejection of the partitionig of China by the Western powers and Japan was led by the descendents of Shaolin monks. Although not a socialist revolution, it WAS a fight for national self determination and against the imperialism of the West and Japan. Which made it a progressive movement EVEN IF IT'S GOAL WAS THE RESTORATION OF THE CHINESE DYNASTIES. And it DEFINITELY set the stage and was a precursor and inspirer of both Chang Kai Chek's Nationalist fight AND Mao's Stalinist revolution.
In Marxist terms, in my interpretation, Shaolin was progress over the feudal system that was in place at that time, just like capitalism was progress over the feudal system that was prevalent in Europe. It doesn't have to be socialism to be progress, even to Marx. It just has to be a forward movement.
Now, to get back to the gist of the OP. To me the two philosophical systems are not exclusionary for the most part. Actually they rarely overlap. Firstly, one is personal property (Zen) and could be considered micro and one deals with sweeping historical, economic and social processes and and is macro. As long as you don't bring your religion/philosophy into governing I consider it "personal" property (like your shirt or an individual homestead) and it's none of ANY government's business.
= new reply since forum marked as read