>>3251205

So here's how the scenario would play out: Marx moves to Texas in his late twenties and and begins to publish an abolitionist and anti-capitalist newspaper. His impassioned attacks on the unjust laws of Texas ("In 1859 New Mexico received a slave code that vies with the statute-books of Texas and Alabama in barbarity") cause him to be deeply unpopular although he supported its annexation from Mexico, and a mob drives him away in 1850, so he moves to New York to work as a columnist for his friend Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. Four years later, widespread violence breaks out in Kansas over its status as a free or slave state, and he pulls up stakes to cover the conflict for the Tribune and agitate in Kansas. In 1855 he meets John Brown, and the two men strike up a brief but genuine friendship.

TEXAS IS SOOOOOOO EVIL

>>3251267

So he lived from 1818 to 1883. during his 20's it would have been from 1838 to 1848. As any student of American history would know, the 1830's were an interesting period in Texas' history. I'm also guessing that op has deliberately picked this because of the connection with Marx's revolutionary inclinations.

>>3251336

The real question is not whose side he would have been on, but if he would have chosen a side at all. As I mentioned earlier, Marx became a marxist because of the disillusionment he felt with the capitalist system while living in England during the industrial revolution. No time in England might very well mean no Marxism.

There's a chance that he might have moved to Texas and joined up with the settlers in Austin. As a man of German descent, he could have identified more strongly with the settlers than with the Mexicans.

Karl Marx at the Battle of Gonzales, or even as an American hero at the Alamo? It sounds strange, but why not?

>>3251353

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo

LOOK AT ALL THAT DOGSHIT THAT IS BEAING BLENDED INTO THE ICE CREAM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales