Karl Marx: Jenny… Jenny… there’s a kid at the door… Jenny? Oh all right, I’ll get it myself
<opens door>
Young Progressive Thing: Hi there, Mr. Marx! I’m an idealistic Young Progressive Thing. Want to sign this petition from the Canadian Federation of Students and the Carré Rouge types to make tuition free?
KM: (stares bemusedly). Why on earth would I want to do that?
YPT: (startled). Well, it’s about helping the poor. The workers. You’re into that, aren’t you, Mr. Marx?
KM: You’re kidding, right? Haven’t you read my critique of this?
YPT: Um… no.
KM: Where is it? Must be here somewhere. Ah, here we go. Critique of the Gotha Programme, chapter iv: “If in some states… higher education institutions are also “free”, that only means in fact defraying the cost of education of the upper classes from the general tax receipts”. Get with it, kid, this is a regressive subsidy.
YPT: But tuition itself is regressive! Proportionately, it costs the poor more than the rich because their incomes are lower!
KM: But that’s true of all market-traded goods. The poor pay proportionately more for housing than the rich. Ditto beer, phones, milk, Pokemon cards: if that’s your argument for free tuition then you’re really saying we shouldn’t have a market economy. Obviously, I’d personally be cool with that, but last I checked you weren’t actually calling for it.
YPT: Well some of us at head office…
KM: <impatiently>. You’d never say it out loud in public because students would laugh at you.
YPT: OK, true.
KM: Exactly. And without an historically unprecedented re-distribution of income, this makes no sense.
YPT: Hang on, wouldn’t a progressive income tax system counter your objection that free tuition mostly takes care of the rich?
KM: <blinks angrily> Where on earth did you get that talking point?
YPT: Hugh McKenzie and a raft of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives publications.
KM: So, essentially, you’re saying that it’s OK to provide more services to the rich because they pay more taxes. (Gives YPT a suspicious look) Are you sure you’re a progressive?
YPT: (defiantly) Yes!
KM: Remember the bit about “To each according to his need”? Explain to me how free tuition meets that test.
YPT: Well, all students are broke, so they all have need …
KM: Oh, for… look, just because students all have low income, doesn’t mean they all have low access to wealth and money. The “Bank of Mom and Dad” is a euphemism, but for many, many students it’s not the least bit fictional. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that class magically stops replicating itself at age 18.
YPT: But not all parents will contribute the same amount…
KM: And that means we should make it free for everyone? Just because I’m a Marxist doesn’t mean I believe in wasting resources.
YPT: <completely out of arguments> You’re just a neo-liberal reactionary!
KM: (shrugs). Whatever helps you sleep at night, kid.
Clever, well written, and irrelevant: unless, of course, you start with assumption that the poor are that way due to genetic defect, and, for their own good as much as that of nice people, they should not be given ideas above their station.
Surely the basis for subsidizing PSE is in hopes of enlarging the creative workforce, of having more discoverers of Insulin & more Great Writers ( tho some may say that, while PSE is almost essential for the first, it may even be a hindrance to the second). As for bank of Mom & Dad, try that canard on a $14/hr single mother with one bright kid & one sick one; or the musical kid whose prosperous parents want her to have a “real” career.
Also, if it’s Good Thing to make Primary & Secondary education, without regard to ability, universally free (and, until recently, compulsory), why stop at age 16, 17, 18?