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.
