DBWI: Marx doesn't move to Texas?

So in 1843, Marx was actually thinking about moving the Paris. What if he hadn't changed his mind and moved to the Houston instead? Could we see Marxism flourish in France instead of in Texas? Possibly even with Texas joining the US before the ACW?
 
So in 1843, Marx was actually thinking about moving the Paris. What if he hadn't changed his mind and moved to the Houston instead? Could we see Marxism flourish in France instead of in Texas? Possibly even with Texas joining the US before the ACW?
Probably not, considering that Republicanism and the Bonapartists were far more popular at the time. Marxism itself didn't really find much of a root in the French state until the 1890s, and even in their heyday the Fabians were notably more popular than they were though, since no one wanted to destroy the Third Republic.

Marx and his concepts were lucky in getting a test subject in Texas mainly because it was such a disparate and beyond dysfunctional state. It was a melange of Americans of the north and south, Germans and Sorbians seeking better lives from the disparate states that made up the carcass of the HRE, Mexicans setting up shop to escape from their unstable nation at the time, religious groups like the Mormons trying to find a haven in the west, and a sprinkling of natives that were not a fan of the settlers forcing them to the fringes. His political-economic doctrine was really the one thing that could have all these people come together to come up with a semi-functional nation.

It still hit a lot of snags, and Marx often wrote treatises on the matter after his stint on the Council in the 50's. Marxism mainly became so functional and effective as an ideology because he got to see, test, experiment, and revise it throughout much of his life. Imagine if he didn't get to actually work with the ideas he had; it'd have been a far weaker ideology as a result. If he didn't manage to gain power in Texas, the nation would probably have become a primarily English speaking state of the Union rather than the German speaking country that serves as a sort of counter and buffer between the US and Mexico.
 
If Marx had lived in any large city (such as Paris) his ideology probably would have been based mostly around industrial production and intellectual theory, the notion that small towns and tribal councils should be virtually independent didn't occur to Marx until he toured what we today call the Comanche Marches during his wilderness years. Assuming that Marx did take a more urbanized prospective, Marxism would have probably been far more influential in a place like Britain and ignored in the Zakatimet of Arabia.

(OOC: Zakatimet is a popular transliteration that means 'charity-state' and references the fusion of Islamic values and Marxist economics that defines Alt Arabian Peninsula)
 
If Marx had lived in any large city (such as Paris) his ideology probably would have been based mostly around industrial production and intellectual theory, the notion that small towns and tribal councils should be virtually independent didn't occur to Marx until he toured what we today call the Comanche Marches during his wilderness years. Assuming that Marx did take a more urbanized prospective, Marxism would have probably been far more influential in a place like Britain and ignored in the Zakatimet of Arabia.

(OOC: Zakatimet is a popular transliteration that means 'charity-state' and references the fusion of Islamic values and Marxist economics that defines Alt Arabian Peninsula)
If he became urban like that, he might not have been able to come to an agreement with Bakunin and the Anarcho-Socialist wing of the International, and it would've possibly fractured. He would've had no allies likely, since he never really got along with the Fabians, finding their actions to be too sluggish and too diluted for effective social change.

Speaking of which, I'm curious on if the Republic of Spain would've been less open to the ideas of Marx and Bakunin if there wasn't successful examples of how it would work in Texas and to some degree the US (the Midwest and the Rockies especially).
 
Marx is a pretty smart person. Of course he would have hit upon a healthy interplay between theory and practice.

We may have lost the distinctive Texas expression "half-assed." For example, the part in which Marx is saying that you want to try medium-scale experiments where you are following theory in a thoroughly "half-assed" fashion!
 
Without the connections Marx built, I doubt we would see anything close to OTL's number of political refugees to Texas after 1848. I think a lot of the future Lateiner assumed that because Marx lived there, it had to be somewhat civilized (in error lol). And even so, if Marx hadn't spent five years examining socialism in the practical world of early Texas, and developing the applied philosophies that the Latin Settlements used, I doubt most of them would have lasted long. Even those that eventually disbanded or were absorbed into larger communities left tight Lateiner political organizations in their wake.
 
Without the connections Marx built, I doubt we would see anything close to OTL's number of political refugees to Texas after 1848. I think a lot of the future Lateiner assumed that because Marx lived there, it had to be somewhat civilized (in error lol). And even so, if Marx hadn't spent five years examining socialism in the practical world of early Texas, and developing the applied philosophies that the Latin Settlements used, I doubt most of them would have lasted long. Even those that eventually disbanded or were absorbed into larger communities left tight Lateiner political organizations in their wake.
Well, the Lateiners were leaving a country that was currently going through another bout of seperatist rebellions and the highest string of Pronunciamientos that Mexico faced since Guadalupe Victoria's initial stint ended. People sometimes forget that Mexico was a failed state until Benito Juarez's very successful terms righted the nation. The Lateiners didn't expect how far in the boonies Texas was, but the comparative safety of the Pueblos and the (comparative) stability Texas had made it a good place to settle and prosper, or at worst serve as a reliable stop by until you migrated to Louisiana or the Ozarks.

The presence of so many socialist philosophers making the rounds in Austin probably elevated it to cultural center in its own right too. I mean where else besides St. Imiers in Switzerland could a variety of revolutionaries and thinkers sit down, have Texan Sweet Tea (or coffee), and talk in safety?
 
OOC: Uh, wouldn't the Texans run Marx out of state on a rail? They'd just fought a war to preserve slavery in their nascent colony/nation, I doubt they'd have any tolerance for someone advocating the dissolution of class divisions.
 
OOC: Uh, wouldn't the Texans run Marx out of state on a rail? They'd just fought a war to preserve slavery in their nascent colony/nation, I doubt they'd have any tolerance for someone advocating the dissolution of class divisions.
Slavery was actually a very minor factor in the Texan War of Independence, unlike the US Civil War. When Santa Anna tried to centralize the Mexican government, there was opposition across the nation and several secessionist movements. The Californios, the Republic of the Río Grande, the Republic of Zacatecas, and the Republic of Yucatán all attempted secession at varying times, and none of them had slavery.
 
OOC: Uh, wouldn't the Texans run Marx out of state on a rail? They'd just fought a war to preserve slavery in their nascent colony/nation, I doubt they'd have any tolerance for someone advocating the dissolution of class divisions.
OOC: There were also a few freethinking communities, also ones settled by Germans, in Texas where Marx could've settled, such as the one below. Perhaps his ideas would spread from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisterdale,_Texas
(Granted this one was raided by Confederates in the 1860s and didn't exist during the Republic of Texas.)
Baring that he could always move to a more urban area where slavery is less prevalent or a German settlement.
Also as mentioned above, not everyone there was pro-slavery, and slavery had almost nothing to do with Texan independence.
 
Last edited:
OOC: I just assumed that the messed up demographics of early Texas allowed Marx and his ideals to find roots in from the freethinking communities and tribal lands he lived in this timeline.

Yeah, slaves were mainly a big thing for the southerners who tried their luck in Texas. It never was viable outside of the easternmost parts of Texas, and after the Cotton Rebellion was effectively a nonissue. Other industries and I believe pepper and cattle became more important to the region afterwards.
 
OOC: I just assumed that the messed up demographics of early Texas allowed Marx and his ideals to find roots in from the freethinking communities and tribal lands he lived in this timeline.

Yeah, slaves were mainly a big thing for the southerners who tried their luck in Texas. It never was viable outside of the easternmost parts of Texas, and after the Cotton Rebellion was effectively a nonissue. Other industries and I believe pepper and cattle became more important to the region afterwards.

The OT explicitly says he moved to Houston, which was at one point the capital of the Republic of Texas. If he was living in New Braunfels, I could understand, but Houston?

And as a Texan, I just think it's disingenuous to imply that the slavery issue had little to do with the tensions between the Texian settlers and the government in Mexico City. Mexico had, afterall, outlawed slavery six years before the revolution.
 
The OT explicitly says he moved to Houston, which was at one point the capital of the Republic of Texas. If he was living in New Braunfels, I could understand, but Houston?

And as a Texan, I just think it's disingenuous to imply that the slavery issue had little to do with the tensions between the Texian settlers and the government in Mexico City. Mexico had, afterall, outlawed slavery six years before the revolution.
OOC: But there were also many other fairly large reasons as well.
- Denied freedom of religion.
- Further immigration from the states was prohibited.
- Tariffs imposed on US goods.
- Majority Anglo populace with Mexican government
- As mentioned above, a new centralized government with less individual rights.

In the OT he did move to Houston, but never states that he stayed there afterwards. Houston and Galveston were the biggest port cities, seems like it would be the easiest place to immigrate to first.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
One thing we need to remember is that Marx softened up on some of his most hardline stances over time. And that his original ideology was centered around industrialized Western Europe, not rural Texas. He did alot of tinkering with his original ideology while in Texas. If you're interested in the original version of Marxis read up on Engelsism, which basically was Marxism as Marx originally imagined it.

And had not Mexico and the US given him tacit support his ragtag band of German immigrants, opressed Mexicans and escaped slaves would most likely have been killed during the Social Wars, instead of first helping the Populists and the Natives overthrow the tyranny of the Democratic Party, and then was ready to move on power when the Populist government collapsed less than a year later.
 
. . . the notion that small towns and tribal councils should be virtually independent didn't occur to Marx until he toured what we today call the Comanche Marches during his wilderness years. . .
And not just that Karl got the right mix between capitalism and socialism.

He made the far more artful move of getting the right mix between a formal economy and an informal economy of reciprocity. And when all is said and done, the primary backstop of a cash economy is that it enables importation of food during periods of famine.
 
The OT explicitly says he moved to Houston, which was at one point the capital of the Republic of Texas. If he was living in New Braunfels, I could understand, but Houston?

And as a Texan, I just think it's disingenuous to imply that the slavery issue had little to do with the tensions between the Texian settlers and the government in Mexico City. Mexico had, afterall, outlawed slavery six years before the revolution.
OOC: True, but the slavery issue had been mainly defused by the Mexicans allowing 99 year indentured servant contracts; many of the slaves in TX were brought in under this loophole... if they even bothered. Mexican enforcement of the rule was pretty haphazard...
 
And not just that Karl got the right mix between capitalism and socialism.

He made the far more artful move of getting the right mix between a formal economy and an informal economy of reciprocity. And when all is said and done, the primary backstop of a cash economy is that it enables importation of food during periods of famine.

Yeah, he realized that humans needed some amount of incentive when it came to the economy. He didn't like that realization, but he swallowed his pride when he collected the results. It really was fortunate that he had a scientist's mindset when it came to his work really.
 
If it weren't for the Communist Militia he set up, which he thought would be needed for the Revolution, I doubt that accurate riflemen would be called Marxmen today.
 
Yeah, he realized that humans needed some amount of incentive when it came to the economy. He didn't like that realization, but he swallowed his pride when he collected the results. It really was fortunate that he had a scientist's mindset when it came to his work really.
Very quickly, Karl noticed people are in favor of a person becoming rich through their own efforts but solidly against monopoly power.

Most of his fellow members of the 35 seat Texas unicameral legislature also easily noticed this same point. Karl's contribution, recent scholars have argued, was that he encouraged fellow members to he much more direct and confident regarding the practical implementation. That, like in so many areas, Karl's informal leadership was considerable.

And through the rest of the 1800s, Texas showed both the U.S. and Mexico how to effectively regulate railroads, grain elevators, and other utilities which could have easily become quasi-monopolies.

Much, much later, Texas, North and Central America more broadly, Argentina, Poland, China, and other super advanced economies still faced the job and economic equality crises when more and more auto manufacturing jobs first and foremost, as well as other manufacturing jobs, began to be re-located to Africa and central Asia in the 1950s, but ah, that's a big discussion for another time.
 
Last edited:
Top