I have lived in Post-Communist Europe for most of my adult life. I have seen the horrorible damage close up. I know it's people and speak it's languages.
To use the term to score cheap political points is not only disingenuous, it's disrespectful to our "Greatest Generation" of Americans who defeated Communism through a long, heroic and bi-partisan effort.
In fact, looking back to how we defeated Communism provides a good guide to how we should combat our problems today: Real action rather than empty rhetoric.
Let's take a quick look at how we actually made Capitalism successful while Communism failed so miserably.
The Marshal Plan: When Europe was starving and Stalin was threatening to take over Europe, America launched an unprecedented aid effort that revitalized Europe, saved it from Soviet domination and earned the USA the respect and admiration of generations.
Moreover, look how General Marshall described the plan in his famous speech at Harvard:
Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.
We sent over aid, let the Europeans decide how best to use it and gained not only their gratitude, but also strong trading partners and military allies that fed into our own post-war boom.
It was that kind of heroic diplomacy that won the Cold war.
Now let's look at the Bush administrations record. In it's first year it tore up five major international agreements. It reduced crucial and very cost effective aid programs such as Muskie and FSA scholarships. Then, for good measure, the Bush administration made clear that the US would do whatever it pleased no matter what anybody else thought. (It should also be mentioned that the only major contributions from non anglo-saxon states were from post Warsaw Pact countries who felt that they couldn't turn down an American President. They will think twice next time).
One wonders what John McCain and Sarah Palin would have said about the "naivete" of the Marshall Plan if a Democratic President would have proposed it today. We have already seen the pains they have taken to take shots at European allies like Spain and Sweden.
Total Factor Productivity: Economists who have studied the Soviet Union estimate that by the 1960's inputs in the Soviet economy were worth more than the outputs. In other words, they had become so innefficient that they had negative total factor productivity. Once they hit that point, their eventual collapse was just a matter of time. It happened baecause Central Planning failed to take into account economic signals and instead put "strategic" (read: political) concerns over economic ones.
Let's imagine how the process worked: Politically connected industries would meet privately with top government officials out of the public eye and developed secret plans that benefitted few at the expense of many. Anybody who objected was deemed not only "unpatriotic," but an "enemy of the state." Dissention was not tolerated. Now who does that sound like?
Capitalism: Joseph Schupeter coined the term "creative destruction" and posited that a capitalist economy must innovate to survive. To do that, risk-taking must be encouraged. Economic programs such as Social Security, Medicare nad Unemployment Insurance encourage risk-taking by providing a safety net if one who takes a risk on a new company or a new industry should fail. Universal Health Coverage would do still more to encourage risk taking. The fact that a majority of personal bankruptcies are heath related and McCain/Palin propose nothing meaningful is not only foolishly callous but also anticapitalist.
Public Goods: Any good capitalist needs to take Economics 101 in college. Assuming one does not fail the course, it is inevitable that one will learn about "public goods." National security, infrastructure and our environment are all good examples of things of real value that the private sector doesn't manage well. In fact, as the conservative economist (and Nobel Prize winner) Ronald Coase points out, to allow companies to pollute for free is not only corporate welfare, but it is inefficient (i.e. anti-capitalist).
So while I find the "Communist" epithet repulsive, I also don't see how anything that McCain/Palin are proposing is "pro-capitalist." Rather it epitomizes the kind of corrupt, politburo syle of governing that not only lost the Cold War but did so much damage to so many.