X: a Journal of the Arts, which has published issues on "geography" as well as "music," last year devoted an issue to the fiction of a single author, Richard Grayson. This month a New York publishing house has published a book of Grayson's collected fiction.
As might be expected from a collection of journal excerpts, there is a good deal of self-indulgence, occasionally smacking of that late '60s, post-hippie sensibility which seeks to startle, but is more often merely tiresome. Still, however, the sheer variety of styles makes for an entertaining tour of some of the frontiers of contemporary prose. The book is given some structure through division into six sections, which correspond loosely to different points of view, or aspects of the writers' experience. The first is aptly titled "The Writer." and Richard Grayson's musing is an eloquent and ironic slice of the difficult and seldom rewarding realities of that life
Today, Friday, February 6, 2026, an article by Jordan Willow Evans, "Arizona Independent Party Chair Endorses Candidate in Contested Gubernatorial Primary," mentions Richard Grayson:
The decision to back Lytle has also drawn criticism from Richard Grayson, a longtime independent candidate who was involved with the organization when it operated as the state’s No Labels affiliate and who appeared on the 2025 special election ballot for Arizona’s 7th Congressional District under its then-No Labels line. Grayson has argued that the party should provide equal access and coverage to all candidates, regardless of their qualifications.
In a January 26 opinion for Independent Newsmedia, Grayson, who has since been identified by local media as running for Arizona’s 5th Congressional District this year as a member of the Green Party, argued that the Arizona Independent Party was originally formed to offer voters an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, referencing Johnson’s own remarks that equal ballot access is a core part of the party’s mission. He defended Hourihan, writing that she has actively campaigned across Arizona for months and has received notable grassroots support and community media coverage prior to Lytle’s entrance.
“The issue here is not the merits of either candidate,” Grayson wrote. “It is about process and fairness. Independent voters are drawn to the AIP because they expect a bottom-up party, not one shaped by insider preferences or uneven visibility.”
Grayson contended that Lytle’s entrance into the race and subsequent media coverage has steered public opinion and led readers to have an incomplete understanding of the primary. He noted that other political parties in Arizona are holding competitive primaries and said the AIP should meet that same democratic standard, cautioning that “voters, not party leaders or headlines, should decide.”
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.
