
Lately, the headlines donโt read like the final act of democracy but more like a progress report on its transformation. The rise of remote protests in China, the export of state-level surveillance systems, and the recalibration of tech giants into quasi-sovereign powers all point to a disturbing reality: inverted totalitarianism, a concept once reserved for political theory, is playing out in real time.
Take **Chinaโs new digital ID system**, which went live this summer. It ties together facial scans and personal data into a single, government-controlled identifier. Officially, the government frames it as a convenience โ a way to unify online identity and cut down on fraud. But critics rightly warn that this is a refined instrument of control: with this ID, the state can link online behavior to real-life identity, erasing anonymity and amplifying its capacity both to surveil and to censor. ([The Washington Post][1])
This is not just authoritarianism, but an inversion of democratic form: the appearance of choice and privacy persists, while real power consolidates around centralized digital infrastructure. Sheldon Wolin called this โmanaged democracy,โ and these developments are textbook examples.
Meanwhile, **American tech giants are complicit in building this architecture**. A new investigation reveals that U.S.-based companies like IBM, Intel, and Nvidia have contributed technologies to Chinaโs surveillance systems โ from predictive policing to biometric tracking. ([AP News][2]) These firms are not just selling servers or chips; they are exporting the building blocks of a stateโs power over its population. The corporate-state alliance here is unnervingly direct.
Then thereโs the troubling evolution in how **big tech interacts with autocratic regimes more broadly**. Reports show Google has complied with censorship demands from authoritarian governments, removing content at the request of Russia and China. ([The Guardian][3]) Through opaque processes, Google shapes what people in repressive societies can โ or cannot โ see. Thatโs less โplatform as neutral hostโ than a gatekeeper acting on behalf of state power.
Crucially, these developments donโt just reflect old-school repression. What weโre witnessing is a **systemic reorganization**: corporate infrastructure, once focused on profit, is now deeply entwined with the coercive powers of the state. Thatโs inverted totalitarianism in action โ not with mass terror, but with bureaucratic, networked forms of control.
But those in power donโt necessarily call it domination. Consider the **recent change in Googleโs AI ethics policy**, where the company quietly reversed its commitment not to use AI for surveillance or weapons. ([New York Post][4]) On paper, this may be framed as flexibility in a complex geopolitical world. But seen through Wolinโs lens, itโs another signal of how private firms are stepping into governance roles. These corporations are not just advisors, but enforcers โ directly enabling the stateโs coercive reach.
Amid all this, we get **progressive-looking regulatory moves**, but they too bear the marks of inversion. Chinaโs regulator recently adopted facial-recognition rules, stating that individuals should not be forced to verify their identity with it, and that visible signage must mark its use. ([Reuters][5]) That sounds like a win for privacy. Yet, even this framework does not address the core problem: the entire system enabling state surveillance remains intact. These rules may regulate the tools, but not the underlying logic of control.
So what does this mean more broadly? Two urgent take-aways emerge if we analyze these stories not in isolation, but as coordinated symptoms of a deeper shift.
**First**, power in 2025 is not simply being appropriated by authoritarian actors. It is being **restructured through infrastructure**: networks, data systems, and corporate-state pacts. This is not just repression; itโs governance. The digital ID in China, the facial-recognition infrastructure, the role of U.S. tech firms, and the retreat of tech ethics are all part of the same architecture โ not a bug, but a feature.
**Second**, the rhetoric of โrightsโ and โregulationโ is increasingly being deployed as *legitimating cover*. New rules or ethical principles do not necessarily dismantle power โ they institutionalize it. Academic critics are now warning that regulatory frameworks (even in democracies) often repackage institutional stability rather than challenge structural dominance. (See, for instance, analyses that argue rights-based regulation may simply legitimize institutions rather than democratize them.)
In Wolinโs terms, whatโs at stake is **depoliticization** โ the transformation of political conflict into a matter of administrative management. Rather than contesting the foundations of surveillance systems or demanding collective democratic deliberation, public debate is steered toward โethical AI,โ consent forms, or compliance. Meanwhile, power accrues to those who control the infrastructure.
This inversion demands a re-politicization. Civil society, scholars, and activists cannot simply call for stronger data protection or better AI ethics; they must also challenge who builds and owns the systems of governance. Do we really want our identities and behavior to be administered through privately managed yet state-linked platforms?
The alternative is not a return to pre-digital innocence โ thatโs impossible. But it might be a democratic reimagining: digital infrastructure that is not just regulated, but **collectively governed**. Public control over data systems, transparent architecture, and institutional accountability โ not just on paper, but in practice.
In 2025, the headlines are clear. The danger is not a distant dystopia, but **a present condition**. If we do not recognize inverted totalitarianism when it's being built in real time, we risk becoming complicit in its architecture โ not just as citizens, but as constituents of a managed democracy we never asked for.
[1]:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/15/china-digital-id-internet-surveillance/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Big Brother gets new powers in China with digital ID system"
[2]:

AP News
Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show
U.S. technology firms such as IBM, Dell and Cisco largely designed and built Chinaโs surveillance state, an AP investigation finds. The tech comp...
"Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show"
[3]:

the Guardian
Revealed: Google facilitated Russia and Chinaโs censorship requests
An investigation has exposed the tech firmโs cooperation with autocratic regimes to remove unfavourable content
"Revealed: Google facilitated Russia and China's censorship requests"
[4]:
Google may use AI for weapons, surveillance โ prompts backlash | New York Post
"Google retracts promise not to use AI for weapons or surveillance - prompting employee backlash: 'Are we the baddies?'"
[5]:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/china-says-facial-recognition-should-not-be-forced-individuals-2025-03-21/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "China says facial recognition should not be forced on individuals"