Largest party in Europe

Walsby erroneously employs a 'materialist' ideology, which contains the assumption that 'every prerequisite' that counts is 'material'.In fact, from Marx's perspective 'every prerequisite' is not 'already in the hands of society'. Walsby's 'facts' are not ours.The 'prerequisite' of 'class consciousness' is not 'already in the hands of society'.'Class consciousness' is an objective factor. 'Materialists' deny that 'ideas' are objective prerequisites of a socialist revolution, and simply pretend that 'consciousness' emerges from 'material' (ie., their notion of 'objective') 'conditions'.A class conscious proletariat is an objective prerequisite of a socialist revolution.There are of course subjective factors, like policies, forms of organisation, strategies, tactics, ideological beliefs, ethics, etc., which, if constructed wrongly, may lead to class defeat, even if there is widespread, majority class consciousness.Nothing is pre-ordained, but must be created and built, by ideas and activity, by Marx's method of social theory and practice.Walsby, like all 'materialists', deny the activity of the masses, and instead look to an expert minority, like Leninism does, who have a special consciousness which they argue that the masses can't have – otherwise, the 'materialists' would agree to the 'material' being our creation, which can be changed, as Marx argued.

[my bold]Marx here is saying:

When Marx writes 'material', he's contrasting it with 'ideal', that is, contrasting 'human' with 'divine'.Marx is talking about human, social, production, not 'matter'. That was Engels' misunderstanding of Marx.In effect, Marx simply means that the social theory and practice of production dominates the social theory and practice of politics.How we create our world dominates how we see that world.

jondwhite's question can be summed up as:"We 'materialists' have been talking shite to workers for 150 years, and the workers haven't been taken in by it".Of course, the 'materialists' think that they've been talking about 'socialism' (just as the Leninists do), but all workers' experience when joining these 'materialist' parties is to be told that 'material' determines, rather than the workers themselves determine, and so they conclude that it won't be them 'building' this 'socialism', but some elite experts, who just happen to 'know matter', and so the workers leave the 'materialist' party.I 'know' this, because I've been through it, as has every worker that I've met in 30 years who's been a member of a 'materialist' party. Out of dozens of close aquaintances, none have remained members for more than a few years.And afterwards, we all agree – 'materialism' (the rule of an elite) is complete bollocks, and only a workers' organisation that is based upon workers' democracy can build a 'socialism' of the sort meant by us workers.

DJP, I think what is at issue is precisely what you're assuming.That is, the definition of whatever is supposedly 'already developed'.If 'means of production' does not include 'ideas', then it can be argued that they have been 'already developed'.If 'means of production' does include 'ideas', then it can be argued that they have not been 'already developed'.'Materialists', who remove 'social theory and practice' from the creation of 'matter', argue the first.Marxists, who include 'social theory and practice' in the creation of 'matter', argue the second.I agree with Marx, that the 'means of production' are a social product, produced by humans, employing social theory and practice, and so the 'means of production' have not already been developed.That is, the 'means of production' include class consciousness.Only when workers have built their 'means of production' will it be possible to construct socialism.The definition of 'means of production' to mean 'the hard stuff out there' (buildings, roads, factories, offices, etc, what we can 'touch') is an ideological claim by 'materialists', which removes workers' self-activity from the building of their 'means of production', and places this task into the hands of an elite minority (even the hands of the 'unwitting' bourgeoisie).Walsby, like all 'materialists', is disagreeing with workers' conscious self-activity.

[my bold]This is an arguable notion, YMS, but it's nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's ideas.If you disagree with Marx, that's fine, but you should state that openly.

As I said, what you're suggesting is arguable, but it's not what Marx was arguing.