A lived comparison across three decades
Human rights lawyer Chen Jiangang once described two escapes separated by thirty years.
In 1989, when Su Xiaokang fled China, buses did not require passengers to present identity cards. Thirty years later, when Chen fled his home, identity checks were unavoidable. Each movement required verification. In a system reinforced by digital technology, individuals had become visible at every step.
Chen later wrote that his family’s successful escape was not the result of planning, but of luck. Under a high-tech authoritarian system, he said, that luck could not be taken for granted.
This comparison captures more than personal memory. It illustrates how the Chinese Communist Party’s mechanisms of control have changed in form while expanding in reach.
Between the author’s escape in 1989 and Chen’s three decades later, the CCP constructed a governing system often described by analysts as “digital Leninism,” known in Chinese discourse as “cloud totalitarianism.” The shift was not marked by a single law or campaign, but by the steady integration of identity management, data collection, and digital enforcement into everyday life.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Recognition in US political discourse
In the author’s assessment, the two administrations of U.S. President Donald Trump marked a rare moment of clarity in Washington’s understanding of the CCP’s system.
During Trump’s first term, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech at the Nixon Presidential Library calling on the world and the Chinese people to reconsider the CCP’s governing model. In the subsequent administration, Secretary of State Marco Rubio articulated a similarly direct assessment. Some observers have suggested that Rubio’s background as the son of Cuban immigrants from a communist country may shape his perspective.
Rubio’s core argument was straightforward: capitalism did not change China; China changed capitalism.
In practical terms, this referred to the deep dependence that globalization created on Chinese supply chains, spanning consumer goods, pharmaceuticals, and advanced technologies. China, in this process, became a competitor across nearly every major industrial sector.
Rubio described China’s economic model as a form of crony capitalism sustained by low labor costs. He used the metaphor of “opium” to describe this dependency, drawing an ironic parallel with nineteenth-century history. In this framing, cheap labor functions as the substance that keeps the system viable.
Maintaining such labor conditions, from the author’s perspective, requires authoritarian centralization. Without it, wage pressures and social mobility would undermine the model. For China’s hundreds of millions of migrant workers and younger citizens, the issue is not abstract. The desire to avoid conditions resembling coerced labor leads directly to questions about the system itself.
Trade, globalization, and systemic shock
Yu Maochun, a China specialist who has served in the U.S. government, has described the confrontation surrounding Trump-era tariffs as a structural shock to the global system.
In his assessment, it may represent the most significant disruption in economic and trade policy of the twenty-first century. The dispute was not solely about tariffs, but about how China’s entry into the global system altered its rules.
Since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, Yu has argued, its trade and industrial policies have damaged the existing free trade framework. Tariffs, while inconsistent with an idealized vision of globalization, were presented as responses to conditions that no longer matched that ideal.
Former U.S. official Matt Pottinger has argued that digital Leninism has been operating inside China for roughly three decades. Many of the technologies underpinning it, he has said, originated in the West, whether through transfer or appropriation.
Only when elements of this system began appearing beyond China’s borders did wider recognition emerge. Pottinger has also noted the scale of the CCP’s united front apparatus, which employs several times more personnel than the U.S. State Department’s diplomatic corps.
In Chinese political language, these integrated control mechanisms are often referred to collectively as “cloud totalitarianism.”
Globalization and a new form of capitalism
China’s rapid growth under the sealed control of a Marxist–Leninist party produced a configuration not previously observed in the history of capitalism.
Market mechanisms became entangled with political power, low-cost labor, and systemic corruption. Western financial interests, supported by elected governments, engaged with a CCP system that prioritized growth over institutional reform. The result was high-speed expansion driven by intensive resource use and the mass production of low-cost goods for global consumers.
This arrangement reshaped consumption patterns well beyond China. Dependence on overseas manufacturing weakened the universality of civil rights norms that had gained prominence in earlier decades. Markets were distorted in ways that disproportionately benefited multinational corporations.
In simplified terms, globalization functioned largely as an interdependent system linking the United States and China.
After global violence peaked around 1990 and declined, economic growth spread across much of the developing world. China’s economy expanded rapidly, roughly doubling every eight years. India, despite operating within a democratic but inefficient system, also experienced sustained growth.
Political analyst Fareed Zakaria described this period as the emergence of a “post-American world,” following earlier shifts marked by the rise of the West and later the United States.
WTO entry and structural imbalance
Gordon G. Chang, a Cornell Law School graduate who spent two decades living and working in Shanghai, argued that China’s internal problems would intensify after its entry into the WTO.
His 2001 book The Coming Collapse of China did not see its prediction realized in the short term. However, it raised a lasting question: how China could evade or violate WTO rules while avoiding domestic crises and shifting costs outward.
In 2006, Peter Navarro advanced a related argument in The Coming China Wars. He attributed large U.S.–China trade imbalances to asymmetries in trade rules. China, he argued, attracted U.S. manufacturing by violating WTO norms, hollowing out American industry, while appropriating technology and exporting finished goods back into the U.S. market.
For those who once associated modernization with political convergence, the outcome diverged sharply from earlier expectations.
Crisis transfer and nationalist release
During periods of financial stress, a central question emerged: could the U.S. system absorb the crisis without transferring costs elsewhere?
Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made repeated visits to Beijing during the global financial crisis, pressing Chinese authorities to help stabilize markets. In his view, the CCP functioned as a regime willing to absorb external costs in exchange for internal stability.
Funds directed toward maintaining social and political stability helped offset losses generated elsewhere. At the same time, nationalist sentiment within China was tolerated and, at times, encouraged.
While foreign actors benefited materially, Chinese citizens largely received symbolic or emotional release. These dynamics intersected with longer historical narratives tied to opium, unequal trade, and national humiliation.
Digital Leninism as a governing model
China’s experience introduced not only a new form of capitalism, but a governing logic that challenged existing analytical frameworks.
The most striking feature of the past three decades, in the author’s view, was not growth alone, but the degree to which corruption and control became structurally embedded.
With the maturation of digital technology, centralized authority acquired new tools. Advances in artificial intelligence and data analytics, long imagined in fiction, proved adaptable to governance.
Public statements by technology executives, including Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, have acknowledged that digital platforms can reinforce centralization when aligned with state power.
In China, major firms such as Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent became integral to governance. Through data integration, behavioral tracking, and predictive analytics, oversight shifted from overt coercion to embedded, continuous monitoring.
In Chinese online discourse, this configuration is often called “cloud totalitarianism.” Analysts describe it as digital Leninism.
From Mao-era control to digital surveillance
Traditional mechanisms of social control weakened during the reform era as mobility increased and economic resources diversified. Mass incidents became more frequent and less organized.
Advances in information technology reversed this trend.
Early experiments included monitoring taxi networks. After the Tiananmen crackdown, activist Wang Dan was apprehended in part through communication surveillance, illustrating early forms of integration.
Authorities later constructed a national population database using citizen identification numbers as unique identifiers, integrating public security, health, and family planning data. This infrastructure supported a dynamic control mechanism targeting categories deemed high risk.
Official figures suggest that tens of millions of individuals were incorporated into these systems.
At the local level, monitoring relied on resident participation and rapid response protocols. Compared with Mao-era neighborhood surveillance, the contemporary model relies less on human informants and more on technological integration.
By 2009, spending on stability maintenance exceeded military expenditures.
The architecture of cloud totalitarianism
This system rests on two core pillars.
The first is unified social credit identification, consolidating financial records, travel history, online activity, and administrative data under a single identity code. Placement on a blacklist restricts access to transportation, property transactions, and credit.
The second pillar is dense camera deployment under initiatives such as the Skynet Project and Sharp Eyes Project. Official planning documents called for comprehensive coverage, real-time data sharing, and rapid response.
Industry estimates indicate that hundreds of millions of cameras were deployed by 2020, supplied largely by domestic firms including Hikvision and Dahua.
Despite sharp increases in mass incidents during earlier decades, authorities maintained stability through surveillance-enabled control. Earlier models of uprising no longer adequately describe this environment.
The surveillance society
Classical political concepts offer limited explanatory power for a surveillance society.
Philosopher Michel Foucault’s concept of panopticism provides a closer analogy, emphasizing how continuous observation produces internalized discipline. Surveillance operates as a form of soft coercion rather than visible force.
Digital authoritarian practices have expanded globally. Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2018 documented the spread of data control, censorship, and surveillance technologies, noting China’s role in exporting this model.
In regions such as Xinjiang, these practices reached their most intensive form.
Earlier totalitarian systems imagined comprehensive surveillance but lacked the technological means to implement it. Today, those limitations no longer exist.
What once belonged to fiction has become operational reality.
Editor’s Note: This article is based on personal testimony, public statements by U.S. officials and analysts, academic frameworks, Chinese policy documents, and reports by international organizations. Some interpretations reflect the author’s analysis.
(The views expressed are those of the author.)
