/lit/ - Literature

So i'm writing this big article on the working class, and how they are no longer voting for traditional socialist parties, as an effect of society moving into the post modern era. This can for example be seen in England, where the working class has lost faith in the Labour party. I will use sociological theory to explain the behaviour of the parties, and the voters. I've thought about some different theorist, and i am in the process of picking out exactly who to choose. Any obvious choices, that you guys can think of?
If so, who and why?

The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba are all examples of communism executed poorly. It's like our version of Keynesian economic theory: If we refuse to follow the instructions and conditions of the theory, can we claim that the concept failed when we do not achieve the desired result?

I don't believe in communism, but if you are going to debate its practicality, do not use examples of the failures of self proclaimed communist governments as examples. Instead, focus on the fact that the instructions are difficult to follow (it is difficult--some might say impossible--to construct such a powerful government that is also free of corruption). Focus on the impracticality of the theory itself, using the countries as examples of how things can go wrong. Do not simply say, to paraphrase: "Communism is bad because look how bad the standards of living are in these countries." Your argument must be that the theory is difficult to execute and is open to corruption, not that, when properly executed, communist governments fail. We have never seen a properly executed communist government.

Your focus should be that humans cannot be trusted to display the good will required in order for communism to work. Focus on the people. Use examples of "communist" governments, as well as others that have suffered from corruption.

This may seem picky, but it's exactly the kind of distinction that distinguishes a good thesis from a bad one.