Typology of projected archetypal political regimes for Mainland China around 1975, using two simplifying assumptions: (1) the character of domestic politics determines foreign policy, and (2) leadership style controls domestic politics. Political consequences of regimes are traced for five policy spheres: domestic issues, domestic institutions, types of foreign policy, foreign policy for geographic areas, and important policy issues. Leadership styles include six regime types: Maoist, ultra-left/Red Guard, military, muddling-through, pragmatic, and warlord/weak-government. Analysis shows a left-to-right trend from ultra-left toward warlord/weak-government; and a "cluster" of Mao/Red Guard, military, pragmatic, muddle-through, and warlord regimes. Invariance across regime type predominates over variance, perhaps reflecting a national interest unresponsive to regime change. Future changes may bring greater order and more centralized control, allowing China to reassert her strength. The pragmatic regime best serves Chinese foreign policy interests, although it is not necessarily the most likely outcome. 42 pp.