Laogai: China’s Gulag That Never Died

I. Introduction: Hidden in Plain Sight

The word Laogai short for laodong gaizao (劳动改造), meaning “reform through labour” refers to one of the most expansive and brutal prison labour systems in modern history. Born out of the ideological furnace of Maoist China and deeply inspired by the Soviet Gulag, Laogai is not merely a network of prisons; it is a totalitarian architecture designed to punish, re-educate, and extract value from those considered threats to state orthodoxy. From the 1950s through the present, the system has functioned as a means of eliminating dissent while maintaining a flow of coerced labour that props up both state power and economic production.

What makes Laogai particularly insidious is its invisibility in modern discourse. Unlike the Nazi concentration camps or even the Soviet Gulag both of which have been extensively studied and condemned Laogai continues to exist in various rebranded forms with minimal global outcry. While Chinese officials claim such systems are aimed at social order or vocational rehabilitation, the reality is far darker. Inmates, many of whom are detained without due process, are subjected to forced confessions, intensive indoctrination, and long hours of unpaid labour in inhumane conditions.

Despite mounting evidence and survivor testimonies, the Laogai system remains largely unchallenged due to China’s global economic integration. Products linked to prison labour still enter international markets, and global corporations rarely scrutinize the origins of their Chinese supply chains. As a result, Laogai is not just a domestic instrument of repression it is entangled with the global economy, hidden in plain sight.

II. Historical Foundations: Mao’s Weapon of Control

The Laogai system was officially launched in the early years of the People’s Republic of China, shortly after Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seized power in 1949. Determined to eliminate remnants of opposition and reshape society under Marxist-Leninist ideals, Mao introduced the concept of “reform through labour” as a mechanism of both punishment and political transformation. With guidance from Soviet advisors, the CCP established a network of camps modelled on the Gulag system. However, the Laogai system quickly developed its own unique features, emphasizing not only labour and incarceration but also deep ideological reprogramming.

By the early 1950s, the Ministry of Public Security oversaw a rapidly growing network of prison farms and camps. These facilities were filled with a wide range of detainees: former Kuomintang members, landlords, bourgeois intellectuals, religious figures, and any individual perceived to be ideologically unaligned with the Communist regime. In many cases, individuals were imprisoned without a formal trial, or sentenced after confessions extracted under duress.

The use of Laogai expanded dramatically during successive political campaigns. During the Anti-Rightist Movement of 1957, hundreds of thousands of intellectuals and critics were sent to camps for “re-education.” The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) saw yet another surge, as Red Guards and party factions sent perceived enemies of the revolution including teachers, writers, and technocrats into forced labour facilities. Laogai became both a weapon of mass repression and a foundation of economic production, transforming vast regions into penal colonies designed to serve the state’s political and material goals.

III. Thought Reform and Ideological Subjugation

Central to the Laogai system is the practice of thought reform sixiang gaizao a method designed to break down a prisoner’s identity and reconstruct it according to Communist Party ideology. Unlike prison systems in democratic countries, where incarceration is intended as punishment or rehabilitation, Laogai’s purpose was transformation. The CCP did not merely aim to silence its perceived enemies; it sought to convert them into obedient, ideologically aligned subjects who internalized party doctrine as truth. This was done through a relentless regime of mental manipulation, public humiliation, and indoctrination.

Every day in the camps began with mandatory political study sessions. Prisoners were required to read and memorize quotations from Mao Zedong, write self-criticisms, confess ideological errors, and denounce fellow inmates. These confessions were often repeated endlessly, with prisoners modifying their statements until they satisfied the ideological expectations of camp officials. The pressure to conform was immense. Those who resisted or failed to exhibit adequate “progress” faced solitary confinement, reduced food rations, beatings, or sentence extensions.

Public “struggle sessions” were a routine part of Laogai life. Prisoners were forced to stand before their peers and confess their crimes real or imagined while being berated and humiliated. These spectacles were not only punitive but designed to instil fear and compel conformity among the wider prison population. Over time, many inmates lost their sense of identity and agency, becoming shells of their former selves. Laogai’s focus on thought reform illustrates its deeper ambition: to destroy the capacity for independent thought, creating citizens who obey not merely out of fear but out of belief.

IV. Economic Utility - Slavery in the Name of Socialism

While Laogai was built as an instrument of ideological re-education, its economic function quickly became indispensable to the Chinese Communist Party. From its earliest days, the system was used to harness the labour of inmates to support national development, often under the banner of self-reliance and socialist production. Mao Zedong believed that forced labour camps could serve dual purposes: correcting ideological deviants and contributing to the construction of the socialist economy. Thus, prisoners were turned into state assets, deployed on massive infrastructure projects, agricultural colonies, and in rudimentary factories scattered across China’s interior.

By the 1960s and 70s, Laogai camps were engaged in everything from coal mining and cement production to logging, brick-making, and textile manufacturing. Inmates worked under brutal conditions, typically for 12 to 16 hours a day, with minimal food and no compensation. They were frequently forced to meet production quotas, and failure to do so often resulted in beatings or additional sentences. The work was exhausting, often deadly, and always coerced.

In the reform era beginning in the late 1970s, as China opened its economy to the world, Laogai facilities were restructured into profit-generating entities. Many were assigned commercial names and began producing export goods for domestic and international markets. The CCP’s model had evolved: Laogai was no longer just a political tool it became a quiet engine of China’s economic miracle. Even today, many of the products that flow into global supply chains clothing, electronics, toys may have passed through Laogai-linked factories, raising urgent questions about consumer complicity and moral accountability.

V. Rebranding and Reinvention — The Cosmetic Disappearance

In 1994, amid growing international criticism and increased awareness of forced labour in China, the Chinese government formally announced the abandonment of the term “Laogai.” At first glance, this appeared to be a significant reform. But in reality, the rebranding was little more than a semantic exercise. The structure, function, and purpose of the system remained largely unchanged. Facilities were renamed jianyu (prisons) or laojiao (re-education through labour), but the mechanisms of forced labour and ideological indoctrination persisted. The term was scrubbed from official discourse, yet the system it represented continued to operate in silence.

The rebranding also allowed China to deflect international scrutiny. As the country prepared to enter the World Trade Organization and court foreign investment, presenting a sanitized image of its justice system became a strategic necessity. Renaming Laogai camps provided plausible deniability, allowing Chinese officials to dismiss allegations of human rights violations as outdated or exaggerated. Meanwhile, the reality on the ground remained the same: inmates continued to work in prison factories under threat of punishment, ideological reeducation remained mandatory, and arbitrary detention without trial was routine.

In 2013, the government further claimed to abolish the laojiao system altogether. Yet, new categories of detention emerged almost immediately “custody and education,” “compulsory drug rehabilitation,” and “vocational training.” These institutions, many of which are indistinguishable from traditional Laogai camps, indicate that the system has not been dismantled but dispersed, renamed, and concealed. Rebranding Laogai did not eliminate its abuses it merely cloaked them in bureaucratic camouflage.

VI. The Xinjiang Blueprint — Laogai 2.0

Nowhere is the evolution of Laogai more visible than in the northwestern province of Xinjiang. Since 2017, the Chinese Communist Party has launched a sweeping campaign of repression against the Uyghur Muslim population, resulting in the internment of over one million people in what the government describes as “vocational education and training centers.” These facilities are, in reality, high-security compounds bearing the same hallmarks as traditional Laogai camps: mass incarceration without trial, forced ideological re-education, and exploitative labour practices. The Xinjiang model is, in essence, Laogai 2.0 refined, digitized, and backed by cutting-edge surveillance technology. Inside these centers, detainees are forced to renounce Islam, pledge allegiance to the Communist Party, and learn Mandarin Chinese under strict supervision. Religious texts are banned, prayer is forbidden, and detainees must memorize state slogans while undergoing psychological manipulation. Those who resist face solitary confinement, extended detention, or transfer to criminal prisons.

Beyond ideological indoctrination, there is also widespread evidence of forced labour. Uyghurs are assigned to work in factories both within and beyond Xinjiang, producing textiles, electronics, and other goods for domestic use and export. Government-run labour transfer programs claim these are voluntary work placements, but leaked documents and eyewitness accounts suggest coercion, threats, and surveillance follow these workers wherever they go. The Xinjiang blueprint illustrates how the Laogai system has adapted to modern governance. It merges old methods forced confessions, labour, and ideological remoulding with 21st-century tools: facial recognition, biometric data collection, and algorithmic policing. The goal remains unchanged total control.

VII. The Organ Harvesting Horror

Perhaps the most macabre and morally disturbing dimension of the Laogai system is its alleged role in China’s illicit organ trade. For decades, human rights organizations, investigative journalists, and whistleblowers have raised serious allegations that organs harvested from executed prisoners many of them Laogai detainees have been used in China's booming transplant industry. While the Chinese government long denied these claims, in 2005, the Vice-Minister of Health publicly admitted that over 90% of transplant organs came from executed inmates. Though officials later claimed reforms were enacted to halt the practice, substantial evidence suggests that forced organ harvesting continues, particularly targeting political and religious prisoners.

Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghur Muslims, and other “uncooperative” groups have been identified as high-risk populations for involuntary organ harvesting. These groups are often detained without legal charges, subjected to medical examinations without explanation, and held in facilities that align eerily with transplant logistics. Eyewitness testimonies describe prisoners being selected based on blood type and tissue compatibility standard criteria in organ transplantation raising chilling concerns about premeditated organ harvesting.

Numerous independent reports, including those by the China Tribunal and Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH), have concluded that China’s transplant industry operates on a scale that cannot be explained by voluntary donations alone. The rapid availability of transplant surgeries in China often within days contrasts sharply with wait times of months or years in other countries. If substantiated, these practices would represent one of the gravest crimes against humanity in the modern era state-sanctioned execution for profit, facilitated by the machinery of Laogai.

VIII. Laogai vs. Gulag — Parallel Brutalities, Diverging Paths

The Laogai and the Soviet Gulag are often compared, and for good reason: both were born from authoritarian regimes seeking to consolidate power through systematic repression. Both involved mass incarceration, forced labour, and ideological indoctrination. Both served dual roles as mechanisms of political control and economic productivity. But while their core functions overlapped, the two systems diverged in their historical trajectories, ideological emphases, and outcomes.

The Gulag, an acronym for Glavnoe Upravlenie Lagerei or “Main Camp Administration,” reached its height under Joseph Stalin, who used it to imprison millions during the purges of the 1930s and 1940s. The Gulag was instrumental in Soviet industrialization, relying heavily on the labour of political prisoners to build railways, mine resources, and settle remote territories. But after Stalin’s death in 1953, the Soviet Union began dismantling the Gulag system. By the 1980s, it had largely ceased to exist, and its crimes became subject to official condemnation and historical reckoning.

Laogai, by contrast, endured. Rather than withering away with political reform, it was rebranded and integrated into China’s evolving system of authoritarian capitalism. Its emphasis on thought reform indoctrination and ideological reprogramming was far more intense and sustained than in the Soviet case. Moreover, Laogai adapted better to market logic, transforming into a prison-industrial complex that continues to supply labour for domestic and global markets. While the Gulag is now a cautionary tale of 20th-century tyranny, Laogai remains a living system rebranded but unreformed, profitable yet hidden, modernized yet medieval in its cruelty.

IX. Global Complicity and the Failure of Accountability

Despite overwhelming evidence, survivor testimonies, and investigative reports detailing the horrors of the Laogai system, global response has been disappointingly tepid. One of the primary reasons is economic complicity. As China emerged as a global manufacturing powerhouse, nations across the world became deeply entangled with its supply chains. Multinational corporations, eager to cut costs, established manufacturing contracts in China without scrutinizing labour practices. In doing so, many unwittingly some perhaps knowingly benefitted from the coerced labour of prisoners within the Laogai system.

Major Western retailers and brands have been implicated in sourcing goods from suppliers linked to prison factories. Yet because Laogai enterprises often operate under alternate commercial names, it becomes difficult to trace the origins of products. Furthermore, the Chinese government has created legal smokescreens, formally outlawing the export of prison-made goods while turning a blind eye to enforcement.

Political responses have been equally hollow. While some legislatures, like the U.S. Congress, have passed bills banning imports made with forced labour or sanctioned specific officials tied to human rights abuses in Xinjiang, many other governments remain hesitant. Geopolitical considerations, trade dependencies, and diplomatic caution have made most nations reluctant to directly confront China on Laogai-related issues. Global institutions such as the United Nations have issued statements but avoided aggressive investigative missions. Meanwhile, millions remain at risk. The silence from the international community does not merely reflect inertia it constitutes passive endorsement. Without consistent accountability and economic pressure, the Laogai system persists, lubricated by global indifference.

X. Conclusion — Memory, Resistance, and the Struggle for Truth

The Laogai system is not merely a relic of Cold War authoritarianism it is a living, evolving architecture of control that continues to operate under new names and forms. Its core functions ideological indoctrination, forced labour, arbitrary detention, and psychological subjugation remain intact, retooled to fit the demands of a 21st-century authoritarian superpower. While it may no longer bear the name “Laogai” in official records, its spirit persists in Chinese prisons, re-education centres, labour camps, and digital surveillance regimes. From the remote wilderness of Qinghai in the 1950s to the AI-controlled detention centres in Xinjiang today, the philosophy remains unchanged: dissent must be broken, individuality erased, and obedience manufactured.

Yet the greatest threat posed by Laogai is not merely what happens within China’s borders it is what the world allows by its silence. In the pursuit of economic gain and geopolitical stability, democratic nations have accepted a devil’s bargain, overlooking egregious human rights abuses in exchange for access to Chinese markets and cheap goods. This global complicity erodes the moral fabric of international law, exposing the hollow nature of modern human rights rhetoric.

Remembering Laogai is a moral imperative. Survivors like Harry Wu devoted their lives to documenting the truth, hoping the world would care. Their courage demands that we continue the fight for transparency, accountability, and justice. As with the Gulag and the concentration camps of Europe, Laogai must not remain hidden. Only through remembrance, resistance, and moral clarity can its machinery be halted and its victims honored.

References

1. Wu, Harry. Laogai: The Chinese Gulag. Westview Press, 1992.

2. Laogai Research Foundation. “The Laogai Handbook 2008–2009.” Washington, D.C.: LRF, 2009.

3. Pasqualini, Jean. Prisoner of Mao. Penguin Books, 1973.

4. Amnesty International. “People’s Republic of China: The Crackdown on Falun Gong and Other So-called Heretical Organizations.” March 2000.

5. Human Rights Watch. “Locked Doors: The Human Rights of People Living with HIV/AIDS in China.” September 2003.

6. United Nations Human Rights Council. “Compilation on China – Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.” 2022.

7. Congressional-Executive Commission on China. “Annual Report 2022.” U.S. Congress, 2022.

8. The China Tribunal. “Final Judgment & Summary Report into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China.” June 2019.

9. Gutmann, Ethan. The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem. Prometheus Books, 2014.

10. The Jamestown Foundation. “The Xinjiang Papers and China’s ‘Re-education’ Camps.” China Brief, Volume 19, Issue 23, December 2019.

11. ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute). “Uyghurs for Sale: ‘Re-education’, Forced Labour and Surveillance Beyond Xinjiang.” March 2020.

12. Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH). “Investigative Reports and Global Advocacy Updates.” 2022.

13. BBC News. “China’s ‘Re-Education Camps’ for Uighurs.” November 2018.

14. Freedom House. “China: Transnational Repression Case Study.” 2021.

15. The Economist. “Why China's Forced-Labour Problem Is Getting Harder to Ignore.” April 2021.