Hear Me Out, Every Side Wants A Borderless World

Every Side Wants A Borderless World

Ever thought about how one of the end goals of Marxism is the same as one of the end goals of Liberalism? Funny.


The most polar opposite political philosophies both hate borders. I realize that this thesis is a big claim, but keep reading and it'll make sense.

Let's start at the more familiar end of the spectrum: capitalism. With true proponents of the liberal market, world capitalism and globalization are high hopes for the future. Within laissez-faire worldviews, there exists the belief that all governments should take a hands-off approach to economics, in pursuit of private innovation and profit.

The dream that businesses, strewn across the planet and untethered by government regulation, would interact in a global ecosystem of capitalism. Despite the lofty claims, this image is not that nutty! Today, virtually every western economy is organized along capitalist lines. Right now, globalization is rapidly occurring with communication flows in many different directions, thanks to the Internet. This worldwide vision is just a matter of further extending a certain reach as the "Western" momentum continues.

Global capitalism occurs when the free market ideology transcends these infamous national borders – the likes of which can be seen as petty and archaic in an operating system of world capitalism. Political experts cite global free enterprise as the "fourth epoch" of capitalism. Subsequent to the first three epochs, the Earth, once neatly categorized and standardized within countries to protect the people, now transcends national borders.

Global integration encourages the free transfer of goods on a world stage, which would exponentially increase the flexibility that corporations have to choose where and how they operate. Within a purely capitalist system, private entities own the means of production, with no place for government to nudge.

The private sector's already thin membrane would pop, and the market would become more than just a sector; it would be everything. Then, the corporations, that derive income from such ownership, utilize their existing wealth to create more wealth, globally. The basic driver for capitalistic work is the pursuit of profit and innovation rather than the old motivation of fear as seen in the borders that divide us.

This whole concept means that labor is a commodity – a great equalizer of mankind and womankind. There's real dignity in human work, no matter the nationality of the worker.

Bet you didn't think that the most real conservatives *actually* wanted to get rid of the border wall, did you?

Speaking of the worker, we are going to move onto Marxism! As far as that bastardized guy, Karl Marx, was concerned, through inevitable political movements and class upheavals, the human race's societies would evolve into an all-encompassing communistic system.

The Earth will be stateless and collectivist. That vision the long-term goal, at least. Marx thought that because capitalism had basically become global, the proletariat class of the world needs to work as a team, internationally, to avoid continued oppression and exploitation via the giant amoral market.

Come on, communism's rally cry is, "workers of the world, unite!". Obviously, Marx didn't think borders would be a "thing" in the future. Ideally, the workers would move their goods across their global society without the hassle of borders. It's a peaceful view. Such theory may treat world communism as a tranquil and prosperous end result, something almost anyone could endorse.

Borders would wither away in Marx's utopia.

We are alive at quite a time for borders! As an American, I hear screeching promotions and seething detestations concerning Trump's southern border wall every single day. In the postmodern (and post-election) era of severe nationalism and populism that seeps into pretty much everything, it can be difficult to trust anything we hear. Referring back to the political theories that shaped us can be very calmingly enlightening; the idealist theories of old dead dudes can act as a consistent voice amongst the shakiness and screaming matches on the borders.

While I don't personally subscribe to either of these abovementioned strict ideologies, I think it is a humanizing exercise to try to find the similarities in opposite political philosophies, especially in an age when politics are so entrenched in antagonism. Give it a try. You might find that we have a lot more in common than we thought.

Popular Right Now

As A Female Christian Millennial, I Fully Support Alabama's Abortion Ban Because I Know God Would, Too

A life always has worth, no matter the circumstances.


Alabama's state legislature passed a bill on May 14, 2019 that makes it illegal for abortions to be performed past six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who are caught violating the law could be sentenced up to 99 years in prison. The bill is the strictest anti-abortion bill to date this year as states try to pass laws to challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

While the law does allow an exception to women whose lives are at risks, it does not allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. I support Alabama's new law, and I applaud them for their efforts to protect the rights of unborn children.

As a Christian, I believe that life is a precious gift from God and should be treated with care.

The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said the second greatest rule was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39-40). I believe this applies to every person born and unborn. But, even from a secular perspective, there are reasons that support an unborn child's right to life. Let's break down two of the most important components of the bill: abortion itself and the case of rape and incest.

A big argument in the debate is whether a baby is alive before it is born or only after it is born.

I believe can be explained and answered with simple medical science. In the medical profession, a person is pronounced dead when there is no more activity in the brain, known as brain-dead.

At that point, they consider there to be no more life in the body.

The opposite of death is life, so if you have electrical signals still coursing through your brain, then you are alive. A fetus begins to have electrical activity in its brain at six weeks. Most women do not find out they are pregnant until around that time, so by the time they decide to have an abortion, the baby, by all medical accounts, is alive.

Another indicator of whether a person is dead or dying is their pulse.

The pulse is how many times a person's heart beats per minute. If a person does not have a pulse, they will more than likely die if their heart cannot be resuscitated because no oxygen is getting to their brain.

Medical personnel does everything they can to start a person's heart back because they know that the heart is key to life.

A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks old, again before the mother knows she is pregnant and can choose to have an abortion. Since the United States' justice system upholds that killing a person is wrong, then shouldn't killing a baby, who is alive, be wrong too? I think this is plenty of proof that aborting a baby is killing a living person and is therefore wrong.

Rape and incest are two horrible acts that should be punished. It is never the victim's or conceived a child's fault in the situation.

Given the reasons above for why abortion is wrong, I also believe, while both crimes are horrendous, that abortion is still not the answer to this problem. I do understand, however, that women, because of the traumatic experience or other reasons, may not be able to care for the child.

As such, I am an advocate for adoption.

There are many couples out there who cannot have children on their own who would love to adopt. In order, for this to be a viable option, though, Congress needs to make amendments to adoption laws.

Adoption is outrageously expensive, much more costly than an abortion, and is a long and tedious process.

Though the laws are in place so that not just anybody can adopt a child, the government still could stand to relax laws a little. Another option could be to offer aid to those who wish to adopt specifically to cover adoption expenses or to only those who meet certain requirements. If we want to protect unborn children, we must give women and families more viable options.

I know that my views are not popular, but God did not call us to be popular, He called us to be His disciples.

I will not compromise my convictions because I am in the minority. I support the women who have to face this dilemma, and I pray that they and our government officials make the right decisions and aid these women and families in need of help.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

We're All Thinking It, I'm Saying It: Too Many People Are Running For President

I'm all for options, but man, do we really need 24? I mean, I can barely pick a flavor of ice cream at Baskin Robbins let alone a potential President.


There are, currently, 23 Democrats running for President. On the Republican side, there's, of course, Trump, but only one other candidate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Democrats have a whole range of people running, from senators to congressmen, a former vice-president, and even a spiritual advisor. We can now say that there are DOZENS of people running for President in 2020.

Joe Biden has been leading the pack for quite some time now. He was even leading polls before he announced his campaign. Although he is the frontrunner, there really is no big favorite to win the nomination. Biden has been hovering around the mid-30s in most polls, with Bernie Sanders coming in second. Other minor candidates in the hunt are Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris.

After the surprising defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Democrats have become electrified and have a mission to take back the White House after winning back the House of Representatives in 2018. There are so many people running in 2020, it seems that it will be hard to focus on who is saying what and why someone believes in something, but in the end, there can only be one candidate. This is the most diverse group of candidates ever, several women are running, people of color, the first out gay candidate, and several more.

There could be a problem when it comes to debate time. I mean, the first debate is next month. Having around 20-plus people on stage at the same time, debating each other kinda sounds like a nightmare. How can someone get their point across in the right amount of time when someone else is going to cut them off? Debates are usually around an hour and a half. So, if you divide it up, each candidate would get just under five minutes to speak. That would be in a perfect world of course.

Democrats seriously believe that they can beat Trump in 2020. They say they have learned from the mistakes of 2016, and have the guts and the momentum to storm back into the White House. By July of next year, there will be only one candidate left. Will they be able to reconcile the divide during the primaries? We will see. It will surely be a fun election cycle, so make sure to have your popcorn ready and your ballot at hand to pick your favorite candidate, no matter what party you lean towards.

Related Content

Facebook Comments