Socialism

The problem here is that individualism isn't an urban thing, but an aspect of the petite bourgeoisie, think small business owners. Urban areas generally are more pro-social than "fuck you, I got mine," because production in cities is more socialized. When you are describing "collectivism," you're describing not collectivism but instead the communitarian aspects of traditional family units, which also change according to the mode of production.

To go back and re-explain individualism, communalism, and collectivism, think of it in terms of whose interests are primary. Individualists value themselves, communalists value their immediate communities, and collectivists value the entirety of society. This is of course an oversimplification as everything I've been explaining thus far has been.

Regarding fascism, I am referring to the historic phenomenon of fascism. Fascism evolved from liberalism, and rose in countries that were faced with the potential for working class organization internally, and a capitalist class in need of new colonies. This is true of Italy and Germany, and the US Empire in its settler-colonial heritage through today. It sounds like you are trying to redefine fascism from an observed phenomenon itself, to instead a way of categorizing systems, which is weaker in that it erases how to stop fascism entirely and how to predict where it rises.

As for Russia, annexing Crimea and the Donbass regions isn't imperialism, Russia isn't colonizing them. Both voted to join the Russian Federation. Russia is not a global monopolist power, it's a nationalist country encircled by imperialists, hence why the war was sparked in the first place. NATO and the west is at fault for installing a Banderite regime in 2014, and violating the Minsk Agreements that were meant to avoid this conflict and resolve the Ukrainian Civil War between the Donbass and Kiev.

As for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both have very different political climates, stages in social progress, and levels of development. You're reading too much into religion as a sole determinent.

As for how to view social progress, progress happens over time through struggle. Countries do not decide to be conservative, they have different stages in the development of the social struggle, how far it has gone.

As for individual traits being randomly distributed, again, it sounds like you're arguing that different cultures are different at a genetic level, similar to how colonizers said those in Madagascar were naturally more submissive and wanted to be dominated by Europeans. I am not saying you are saying that, but it sounds like your argument can go in that direction, which is why you need to rethink it.