This is one of the best posts that I have ever read on here. There are only a few main parts where I do not concur:
1. I believe that developing countries will adopt dirigisme systems progressing towards hard capitalism, whereas more developed and Western countries will have a hard capitalist system, though they might roll it back if the masses get too upset due to widespread poverty.
2. I believe it is likely that there will be an anthropological catastrophe within the next 100 years. Whether or not it brings down society, we obviously don't know. Moreover, I think the chance of society breaking down within the next 300 years is close to 100% unless it somehow experiences major regressions and re-developments.
3. You mention underdeveloped parts of the Middle East. I do think there are places like Papua New Guinea, Niger, etc. where they will still be far off from being like China a couple decades from now. You say the 'next couple of decades', but I think the length of the authoritarian process will greatly vary depending on the country or region in question.
I believe that law enforcement will use more advanced machines in the following decades, such as remotely controlled vehicles capable of opening fire on protesters. Same with rebels. This somewhat undermines the idea of crime being eliminated by technology because technology brings about the means to commit sophisticated and damaging crimes as well (ex. through drones).
Within the next couple of decades, digital control will probably be accomplished much like it is today through the mainstream enforcing their agenda without generally needing much government assistance in most Western countries, though I would not put it past governments to crack down very hard on dissent, especially if there was some precipitating tragedy that they could use as an excuse. I do believe that techniques of controlling behaviour will continually improve, so we are in agreement over that I presume.
'Economic growth', 'efficiency', 'progress', and 'economic freedom' will probably be mentioned more often than 'socialism for the masses', at least in the hard capitalist states that have not turned to socialist policies. Hollow socialist slogans might be reserved for the dirigisme nations and potentially those nations that have rolled back hard capitalism.
I mention hard capitalism as being more probable than state capitalism because it is likely more efficient.