The Coming Second American Civil War (8 of 14)

For a full version of this study go to, click on “University”, then click on “History”, then click on “Political History” and finally click on “The Coming Second American Civil War”. Or just click HERE



Here is a Truth we don’t like and struggle with it conceptually: “There will always be poor people in the land.” (Deuteronomy 15:11.) These Hebrews were messed up people Moses led out of Egypt. While it is only 381 miles from Egypt to the Promised Land (Israel), it took them 40 years before they saw God’s promise to Abraham come true, and those entering are a new generation, yet they are still messed up. For this reason God is speaking to Moses to address the people telling them what He expects of them in their new home. You don’t find here a Marxism, or Socialism, or Progressivism. They don’t need a King, God is their King. They don’t need economic theory, their conscience is their guide. God does not expect from them a utopian society but a righteous one. In effect it won’t be a perfect world but the best of all possible worlds.

Now why did I go to this subject and what does it have to do with a so-called second American Civil War and what I should learn from it? The simple answer is, the debate changed, the world changed and except for a few neither side in the debate really understood this when it began. For one hundred and twenty-five years we were debating limited government and individual responsibility when one group wanted less government and more individual responsibility against those who wanted larger government and less individual responsibility. Little did Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels know their two little books, Capitalism (Das Kapital) and Communist Manifesto, would really change the world but not entirely in the way they saw it. Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Hugo Chavez were the logical consequence.

How we measure a thing is not the thing itself we measured, it is our perception of it, what captures our attention causing us to focus on a particular part of the measurement over other parts from which we make a definition. I’m not agreeing with the philosophy of our perception is our reality, but our perception is only our perception, Reality stands outside our perception. This little treasure of wisdom plays a large role in today’s world.

More simply put, Marx and Engels looked at societies after the industrial revolution, and their attention was captured by the bad they saw then proceeded to measure societies on that bad ignoring the good. Worse, they denied the good as a false perception. What they saw was that nations from the dawn of history had this one similarity, class struggle.

Philosopher Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin’s On the Origin of Species drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin’s biological ones: “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favoured [British spelling] races in the struggle for life.” The powerful not only had advantage over the weak they took advantage over the weak and presumed this was the natural nature of life. In some nations this was permanent, in others there was a kind of fluctuation. One could rise above their class into a higher class, but there never was a “classless” society.

Our Founders knew this presumption of classes because they came out of that kind of society. What they gleaned from God’s word was that there was no real class separation of people, certainly not ontologically (their nature). “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.

By the time of Marx and Engels the distinction or separation between politics and economics was over. Marxism was an attack on both and from Marx and Engels a new term showed up: social-economics. From Investopedia we read this definition: “Social economics is a branch of economics that focuses on the relationship between social behavior and economics. It examines how social norms, ethics and other social philosophies influence consumer behavior and shape an economy, and uses history, politics and other social sciences to predict potential results from changes to society or the economy.”

We read this about the two men in a website titled Deep Spirits: The Quest for Truth:

“Their intellectual work was geared towards a global understanding of the socio-economic problems which seemed to originate within the human nature and organized societies. Such problems were prevalent in most governing systems of their time. The revolutionary aspect of Marx and Engels’ ideology is centered on the notion that people needed to actively change the socio-economic system to a better form, instead of trying to preserve the existing status quo”.

“At its core, Marxism maintains that there is a very unfair exploitative situation of the average workers -the proletariat- by the rich elite of the world, the bourgeois. This system of exploitation is becoming even worse by the people’s unprotesting participation in it, because this way the system continues to produce more and more wealth for the elite that controls it. The poor are thus enslaved even more, because of the uneven distribution of wealth and the ever-increasing distance between those who own the capital and the workers who can only sell their labor.

“Marx and Engels tried to make people understand that this capitalist system is not profitable for everyone, but only for those few at the top of the pyramid who enjoy immense riches. These riches are a result of exploitation and owning immense capital allows the elite’s perpetual dominance and the superior-inferior interactions in society.

“Marxism suggests that the system needs total restructuring. In order for this restructuring to become feasible, the inherent injustices of capitalism have to be eliminated. All forms of capital, and especially the critical infrastructure and production means such as land, factories or machinery must be distributed to the people by law. Moreover, prohibiting the ownership of capital ensures that no controlling mechanisms of exploitation can exist in the future by those who aim to accumulate excess wealth.

“When people share riches, all social divisions and all forms of differentiation will crumble, and humanity, instead of being divided in capitalists and workers, will be in a state of union through a de facto classless society”. (This article can be found HERE.)

The operative words in this somewhat lengthy quote is “the system needs total restructuring,” and “the inherent injustices of capitalism have to be eliminated.” What is abundantly clear is that one-half of the argument in debate 1 has totally changed and is unrecognizable from the earlier debate Americans had. A second point was the fundamentally radical nature of the new debate. Because it came to Americans under the phraseology of “progressive” rather than “Marxism” most Americans didn’t grasp its radical nature. And it was sold to us under the guise of it not being Marxist or Socialist ideology but when you honestly look at what both Marxism and socialism want it is the same. You know the old saying; “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck.”