As a Green Party candidate who has qualified to run for U.S. Senator in Alaska's August 2026 primary, I am not reluctant to say that I am a communist.
I say this not out of nostalgia or ideological purity, and certainly not to excuse the failures or crimes committed in communism’s name, but because I believe that – given Alaska’s specific conditions – collective ownership and democratic control of resources offer a more workable future than the one we currently have.
Alaska is a paradox. It is vast, resource-rich, and sparsely populated, yet it struggles with inequality, housing shortages, food insecurity, and some of the highest rates of suicide, addiction, and domestic violence in the country.
The state generates enormous wealth – from oil, gas, fisheries, timber, and military investment – yet many Alaskans find it difficult to meet basic needs while much of that wealth flows out of state to distant shareholders.
This is not primarily a failure of geography or culture. It is largely a question of ownership and control.
Under the current economic system, Alaska often functions like an internal resource colony. Natural wealth is extracted for private gain, communities are subjected to boom-and-bust cycles driven by global markets, and long-term social costs are borne locally. Profits leave; consequences remain.
Communism, at its core, begins with a modest proposition: that the people who live on the land should have a collective stake in, and democratic control over, the wealth produced from it.
Alaska already practices a limited version of this idea. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is one of the most unusual policies in the United States. Oil revenues are pooled and distributed equally to residents as recognition of shared ownership.
The PFD has reduced poverty, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities, and has produced measurable benefits in health and education. When it is reduced, those effects are felt quickly.
A more expansive version of this approach would move beyond an annual check. Revenue from Alaska’s natural wealth could be used to guarantee access to housing, healthcare, education, transportation, and energy infrastructure – treating these not primarily as commodities, but as basic social goods.
Housing illustrates the challenge. In much of Alaska, the private market struggles to deliver affordable, durable homes. Construction costs are high, speculation distorts prices, and overcrowding is common. A publicly planned approach could prioritize long-term need and climate-appropriate design over short-term return.
Food security presents a similar problem. Alaska imports most of what it eats, leaving residents vulnerable to high prices and supply disruptions. Collective investment in regional agriculture, fisheries processing, and local distribution would reduce dependence on fragile supply chains.
Critics argue that collective systems suppress initiative. Yet insecurity suppresses initiative as well. When people are not consumed by the cost of housing, health care, or education, they are better positioned to work, innovate, and contribute.
Finally, environmental stewardship matters. Alaska is warming faster than almost anywhere else on Earth. A system driven by short-term profit struggles to plan on generational timescales. Democratic control allows communities to weigh ecological costs against social needs more deliberately.
At bottom, this is about dignity and self-determination. Alaska does not lack wealth. The question is whether that wealth is organized primarily for private accumulation or for broad public benefit.
