A Socialist Alaska

Alaska is facing economic challenges. To continue into the future with a prosperous economy and enough jobs, Alaska will need to make preparations for the problems it may and will face. Right now Alaska is relying on federal money and oil for almost all of its revenue. The fishing industry, another major part of the economy, has been experiencing a downward trend in production that it has not been able to climb out of. Although Alaska currently has a capitalistic economy, changing to a socialist economy would greatly benefit the state because Alaska would be able to better provide for its citizens, stop relying on federal money, and diversify its economy.

For the past 30 years oil has been Alaska’s most profitable resource. But today it is producing half of what it did in the 80’s, and being an nonrenewable resource, in the future it will only produce less than what it does now. Alaska’s oil is also owned by the citizens, which is why the people of Alaska receive a permanent fund dividend every year and do not pay a state tax. However, since Alaska has a capitalist economy, private competing business drill that oil and profit from it. Friday, April 12 2006 Conoco Philips alone drilled $60 millions dollars worth of oil from the north slope (this does not include what Exxonmobil and BP drilled). If Alaska had a state owned company drilling the oil, and only a state owned company, than it would be able to keep all the oil profits. Billions of dollars are made every year by the companies that drill the North slope, that is money that could directly benefit the state and its people, but instead is taken by corporations that are not even based in Alaska. If Alaska had a socialist economy it could keep all the oil profits and despite the downward trend in oil production, make more money in the future than the middlemen pay Alaska for the oil now.

Alaskan industries, mainly fishing, are experiencing economic problems as they enter the 21st century. Global markets, over fishing, and lack of organization are the major reasons why the industry is facing these problems. If the state owned all the fishing in Alaska than competing companies, businesses, and privately owned fishing boats would not be ripping apart the environment and depleting the fish supply competing with each other for the fish. The prices would also be controlled so the fish could be sold at their highest value (and not lowered from the competition.) Also the fish could be better sold on the global market if they were unified. This would benefit Alaska‘s economy and especially the costal regions, which rely on fishing for their livelihood.

Federal money makes up a large portion of the money in Alaska, through jobs and grants. Alaska’s senator, Ted Stevens (who will be leaving the senate this year) as a chairman in the senate, is a major reason why Alaska has received so much federal money now and in the past. The large indigenous population in Alaska is another reason the federal government gives money to Alaska. If Alaska was in control of all the money and all the businesses in the state, it would not need to rely on federal money. The state government could control all the money. The people would keep their same jobs, just not get paid. Through organization the state government could provide the people (indigenous and non-indigenous) with what they need to survive and prosper, provide jobs for the jobless, and care for those who are unable to keep a job.

Through socialism, Alaskan’s would not need money or competition in business. Every Alaskan could benefit from this and Alaska’s economy would have a bright future. This type of economy would directly benefit Alaska, without the federal government’s help or large profit seeking corporations. Organization and socialist control of the economy would turn the fears for Alaska’s economy in the 21st century to anticipation.