Cool, so you gave a super broad, poli sci 101 definition of fascism. You're completely ignoring things like third-positionism, eco-fascism, etc. Fascism is not so much a coherent political ideology so much as it describes a certain sort of ultra-right-wing orientation towards extreme nationalism, and "blood and soil" mythologizing. Moreover, the characteristics you identified are in no way, shape, or form exclusive to fascist regimes, and that all of these things also exist in varying degrees in supposedly liberal democracies. There is one school of thought in political science that argues that fascism is a sort of political orientation where the structural violence inherent to liberalism is simply made manifest, and the government no longer bothers with trying to justify its violent actions with "legitimacy." In political science literature, fascism is rarely described with quantitative characteristics, rather it is more qualitative and philosophical. Try harder.

Juche descends directly from Marxism-Leninism, and the DPRK was an explicitly ML state until 1993. Juche is ML adapted to the Korean context. Likewise, Pol Pot's ideology was simply Maoism adapted to the Cambodian context.

You are going to find few credible political theorists who study Marxism who would argue that Juche is a form of Marxism. If anything, Juche is closer to a form of agrarian feudalism with elements of fascistic autarky thrown in than anything remotely resembling Marxism. The DPRK formally cut all ties to Marxist thought in 1993, and officially declared that the DPRK was not a communist or socialist nation in any sense of the word. Moreover, Pol-Pot was not a communist. The man literally said, "When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that." Moreover, the Khmer Rouge received weapons and funding from the US through CIA proxy programs because the Khmer Rouge was believed to be an obstacle to the spread of communism via Vietnam and China in Southeast Asia.

In addition, ALL ML states utilized brutal forms of repression of dissidents. ALL. The Soviet Union, Cuba, Poland, Albania, Yugoslavia, etc. were ALL repressive dictatorships.

The same can be said about every capitalist state ever. The US relied on slavery and genocide of the natives. There was Chile under Pinochet, Guatemala under Armas, Argentina under Peron, Iran under the Shah, modern day Palestine, etc. Moreover, you're presuming that I'm a Marxist-Leninist and that I have some stake in this. I don't, I'm a left-comm in the councilist tradition, and while I think Lenin's understanding of the state and imperialism are still some of the best modern political theory, I don't subscribe to that line of politics, nor do I support the sorts of governments in those countries you identified. I believe in defending them against American imperialism, but I certainly don't support their methods. Womp womp.