Well, it depends what you mean by the word "Communism", doesn't it? GUEST appears to mean "totalitarianism" when he says "communism". To put it another way, he appears to equate a dictatorship run by a consortium of international banks and giant corporations with communism.

That's up to him. I think he's writing primarily for an American audience, and an American audience can best understand a threat if the word "communism" is used to describe it. (they have a long history of that)

If you were trying to upset a Russian audience, you might better use the word "fascism" to frighten them (given their historical experience with the Nazi invasion).

The main point is, he thinks that globalization involves setting up a totalitarian system run by a rich elite. So do I. I wouldn't call it "communism", I'd call it "corporatism" (because it involves aggressive mass marketing of corporate-made consumer products), but what difference does it make what you call it? One form of totalitarianism ends up pretty much like another after awhile. You have a privileged, centralized elite in control who are above the law. Their objectives are not merely national, but global. They own and control the media. They own and control the armed forces. They ensure that military production remains a priority, and they arrange for limited wars in various places to justify that military production. They own and control all the important political parties (or the one political party, in some historical cases). They make the laws, and the laws become increasinly restrictive and oppressive. They employ the services of numerous secret police to enforce those laws. They imprison people without trial and use torture. They spy on their own public to root out nonconformists and potential rebels. They restrict travel and free speech. They suspend people's enshrined civil rights in order to provide what they call "security".

A great deal of this is happening already, but it changes a little bit at a time so people won't necessarily notice it as much as they might. When a major change is required, a traumatic event is somehow enabled, engineered, provided, or in some cases just faked in order to make the public swallow the pill. Some probable examples: the sinking of the Maine - 1898 ... the Reichstag fire ... Pearl Harbour ...   "Tonkin Gulf Incident" ... 911) Of those examples, one was a complete fake. That was the so-called "Tonkin Gulf Incident". It enabled Johnson to expand the war in Vietnam, and it never really even happened. The others really happened, but there's a lot more to them than necessarily meets the eye. They were far too fortuitous for the men who wanted to launch wars for material gain.