Recently, somebody asked me questions about the two terms "Communist China" and "Free China". The explanations below might provide the answers: 

(1) First, we need to define the term "free". In my opinion, when we say the Free World, we refer to the free- market capitalist system in Western society.

So, if you have no objection, I would say the term "free" in this connection is a reference to the fact that an individual under Western society's capitalist system is free to make a gamble, free to win, free to lose, free to keep his winnings, and free to own what is lawfully his.  

In brief, liberty in our capitalist free society is based on Government's respect for private property. If Government encourages the nationalization of private property or the deprivation of individual citizens' private assets, the foundations of our capitalist free society will be destroyed, and nobody would have the incentive to create new wealth and new jobs.  

Well, Karl Marx's Communist ideology preaches exactly the opposite. History has proven him wrong. That is why the Communist system in the former Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.  

(2) The term Free China used to be (and may still be) a reference to Taiwan (whose official name is The Republic of China). Decades ago when I was in Shanghai, China, I could pick up the English broadcasts of The Voice of Free China based in Taipei, Taiwan, The Republic of China -- when the jamming by the Communist authorities on the mainland was not strong enough to smother the short-wave radio signals. 

In those days, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (who had relocated his Nationalist government from the Chinese mainland to Taiwan) was still alive. Taiwan was regarded as Free China, because its capitalist free-enterprise, private-ownership system remained intact, although Generalissimo Chiang's government was actually a one-party authoritarian regime.  

(3) The term Communist China refers to the Chinese mainland under the control of the Communist Party. Its official name is The People's Republic of China (the PRC). Nobody would call the PRC "Free China".  

The Chinese government in Beijing remains a one-party authoritarian regime which continues to control a very big chunk of the Chinese economy, though the private sector is growing rapidly, now that Western investments pour into the China market.  

(4) But the one-party regime today is quite different from the leftist one-party monster during the leftist Mao era (1949-1976).  

The ruling Communist Party had several factions: the leftist faction, the moderate faction and the liberal faction.  

Based on my observations, the leftist Mao faction actually lost control in the 1970-71 period when the moderates took over the military in a coup. Since Mao's death in 1976, the moderate faction has been growing.  

The late Mr. Deng Xiaoping (the leader of the ruling party's moderate faction) started his capitalistic market-oriented economic reforms in the late 1970s. Thus, today, if you visit China's coastal cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen etc., you can see quite a bit of relaxation both in economic areas and in ordinary people's lifestyles.

(5) This does not mean Chinese citizens are free to criticize the regime in public. That could quickly land one in prison. Nonetheless, I would say things are much better today than before.

(6) Furthermore, because of the economic reforms, China's middle class is growing. Consequently, people from the middle class and even much better-off classes have already infiltrated the ruling party. Hopefully, pro-U.S. politicians will also infiltrate China's ruling party to ensure a good U.S.-China relationship. 

As well-educated people have been promoted to important positions in the ruling party's various units, the class nature of the Communist Party and the one-party regime itself must have changed. In short, the Beijing regime has apparently moved away from its historical leftist proletarian origin toward the right -- that is, toward a relatively market-oriented capitalist system, though that is not enough to make us call it "Free China". 

(7) In the early 1980s when I was in Shanghai, China, I came across certain media reports about China's state-run "Labor Service Corporations". One example may help answer certain questions about China's wage system.  

I remember reading a report in those days to the effect that if the U.S. Consulate General in Shanghai had to hire translators and interpreters, it could not recruit them directly through media advertisements. Instead, the U.S. Consulate General had to approach the state-run Labor Service Corporation.  

The Labor Service Corporation would then provide translators and interpreters to the Consulate at US$1000 per month per translator or interpreter. But none of these translators would receive US$1000 per month. Generally speaking, they would receive only US$100 per month -- still much more than ordinary workers could earn.  

What's more, these translators and interpreters were trained, organized and controlled by the government. They had to attend meetings organized by the Labor Service Corporation where they had to report whatever they knew was going on at the U.S. Consulate.  

(8) Like it or not, that is how the Communist system operates. It wants to control as much as possible. Whether it can is another matter. I believe this system is still in effect today in China, despite the economic reforms and the other changes for the better.  

Overall, my feeling is: Today's China smacks strongly of Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet Union where Communism was actually dead but not yet buried.  

I believe Communism in China is also quite dead today, but it is not yet buried. Sooner or later, Communism in China will be buried too. Just a matter of time. It could happen toward the end of this decade.  

(9) On the other hand, watch out for the left-wing hardliners in China's military -- they (if not kept under proper control)) could pose a threat to U.S. interests in the Far East and destabilize U.S. - China relations.  

For example, encouraged by the Clinton administration's policy of appeasement, the hardliners rattled their sabers toward Taiwan for four full years from 1996 to 2000. 

China is not a single man with a single character. China's ruling party is not a single man with a single character, either. It includes various factions. The liberal faction is friendly toward the U.S. but is weak. The moderate faction is currently in control. Some of the moderates are friendly toward the U.S. too. The left-wing hardline faction is anti-U.S., but it is no longer as strong as it was during the leftist Mao era.  

However, the hardliners could stage a comeback and threaten America's interests in the Far East, if American voters elected an incompetent administration into office that was inappropriately eager to appease. In which case, we could be in for another round of saber-rattling from Beijing. But let's not under-estimate American voters' wisdom. 

(10) A peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue would serve the interests of all parties: the U.S., the Chinese government in Beijing, and Taiwan -- not to mention the international business community. The question is how. 

Beijing's position that there is only one China, which is the People's Republic of China, and that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China is totally unacceptable to the people of Taiwan, because it would enable Beijing to extend its Communist control to Taiwan. 

The Taiwan-independence rhetoric that current Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian uses to energize his voter base in order to get re-elected in Taiwan's presidential election next year is totally unacceptable to Beijing. 

In my opinion, a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue would require both Beijing and Taiwan to adopt a new approach -- for instance, the establishment of a new entity with a new name and a new flag which claims to be "the new One China" that includes both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, ensures that Taiwan is not under Beijing's jurisdiction, and accepts The Taiwan Relations Act of the United States as Taiwan's definitive security guarantee. 

Such an arrangement would be in line with America's "one-China" policy, while at the same time stabilizing the situation at the Taiwan Strait. If it becomes a reality, it would help enhance U.S.-China relations, thereby creating an opportunity for the United States to further her influences throughout the Far East.

Political
Social
Economics
Religious
Science