The category of social left has been fundamentally revised. On this revised version of the Rational Spectrum, the social left is authoritarian promoting not only secularism (Separation of religion from state) but also intensive anti-aggression i.e. passiveness. This group excessively thinks highly of "harmony" and avoids wars with others even by discouraging individuals' autonomy and emotional passion.
Stalin put an excessive priority on his national interest and engaged in various international wars. His racial discrimination was intense especially against Asian ethnic groups in the USSR and her surrounding middle Asian satellite nations. Under the communist party he formed a basis of, Russian gender policy was chauvinist, and hardly followed the original Marxist gender policy. His economic policy was rather a corporatist one instead of a communist/socialist counterpart: He and his liking peer groups monopolised wealth with their collectivist force, and he neglected providing public welfare.
By contrast, Mao Zedong actively promoted multiculturalism integrating all races, and radically transformed China into a more gender equal nation. However, it does not mean he was tolerant; Actually, he was ruthless against those who disagree with his idea of the "harmony". So, he was disharmonious against those who are not joining his dreaming harmony. He provided various radical public welfare programmes even by sacrificing China's aggregate economic strength. Even he inevitably needed to sacrifice his well-beings although he did not intentionally attempted to because of his radical collective economic policy following his believing socialist principle.
Meanwhile Stalin was harsh against those who are against Russian race and his corporate interests in his actively participating domestic and international wars, Mao Zedong was harsh against the reactionary rebels in his ruling nation China. Meanwhile Stalin was more tolerant toward traditional Russian cultures, Mao Zedong was abysmally destroying all the basis of Chinese traditional cultures.
After revising this part of this spectrum, now it is much clearer to define where the Brave New World is. Unlike Fascism, the Brave New World excessively regards highly of "harmony" and avoids wars with others even by discouraging individuals' autonomy and emotional passion. In this extreme case scenario shown in this fictional world, all individuals are fundamentally equal enough to lose their individuality and sovereignty. Its maxim is "War is bad for business".
Also, it is more able to indicate where Japan after WW2 has been since 1945. Japan has adapted a radical pacifist constitution which technically prohibits Japan owing military (The Self-Defence force is not technically categorised as a military force even though it is actually the world second most advanced modern military force). So, even her neighbour nations are threatening by force, it is restrained from counter-attacking.
Since its establishment, Japan has been known as an extremely secular nation where citizens have no consistently believing religion or other faith and they hardly have their own principle to pursue in their life. However, it does not imply that Japan is a rational liberal nation: It is actually opposite. Majority of Japanese are highly subservient to their authority, and they are somehow superstitious even though they have no religious faith.
Except a certain time period of the modern era when Japan adapted a chauvinistic Prussian militaristic politics, Japan has been known as a matriarchy nation since her establishment. So, Japanese females actually hold a high degree of freedom and sovereignty meanwhile many Japanese men are struggling to obtain less demanding female partners than majority of Japanese females.
Japanese economy is not intensively monopolistic unlike the other Asian nations. Japanese market structure is more Westernised so that it is fairly balanced interventionist. But, its interventionism is not considered as the Left-wing and so it is more the Right-wing. Even though Japan provides small&medium enterprises with the government expenditure, the government expenditure for big scale industries is high. Therefore, their government intervention is relatively more favouring for corporatist causes than socialist counterparts.
Japan also suffers from the negative impact of the big government such as excessive privileges of public bureaucrats and corporate elites and excess regulations disrupting free market competition and individuals' freedom of expression. Even tough it is not at the intolerant level as much as all socialist=communist models and some European models,
* Europe:
* The modern US politics:
