IOW, you are dishonest. Thank you. You are neither sane nor well informed.
So basically the Commies often like it, but for misguided reasons.
"Free Trade" is subsidized trade, because it negates the sovereignty of a nation to manage the externalities of trade, whether damage to military infrastructure, pathogens, or introductions of exotic pests, all of which are massive costs and risks that fall upon non-participants in the transaction.
Examples? We have lost the chestnut tree, the American elm, and are now losing the economic value of numerous hardwoods. In Florida, Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) threatens destrution of the entire citrus industry. Goodness knows how much American farmers must pay for herbicides and pesticides to deal with exotic plants and pests, while thistles and cheat grass run rampant in America's National Parks.
Representation in sovereign nations is in part dedicated to managing such intangibles because the risks attendant to contaminated purchases are often difficult to quantify. You would negate that ability.
Yet you would negate the freedom to private property, one of the freedoms that America was built upon. The commies were/are by no means unanimous when it comes to free trade as the commies have spent many years debating the subject.
But perhaps I did misspeak. Yes, sometimes commie and free trade go hand in hand. But capitalist and freedom-loving go hand in hand with free trade.
But I know the type (not to accuse you of being one) - the free trade hating “conservative”. If left to their own devices they would have trade barriers for county to county not mention country to country.