Quebec Tuition Hikes from Three Perspectives - Essay Example

Quebec Tuition Hikes from Three Perspectives I. Object of analysis At the onset, the recent protest over the proposed tuition fee increase indicates a social dissatisfaction on the educational system of Canada. The protest however is only an external manifestation, a “tip of the iceberg” of the on-going deeper turmoil that the students, many of whom are children of the working class, feels about their government. Moreso, when the three percent indexation tuition fee increase will be pushed, despite vigorous protest, being justified by Education Minister Pierre Duchesne indexation a "form of compromise" and added that free tuition in the current economic climate cannot be envisaged (Blatchford). The working class together with the thinking class however is already fed up and the government felt it. It is expected that their efforts would result “in a roughly 80 per cent discount on planned tuition hikes” (Blatchford) indicating that the government is beginning to feel the pressure of mass protest and is now giving in. This discontent is not only felt in Canada but elsewhere in the world where protests as a means of political assertion are becoming mainstream due to its political potency. People no longer rely on the traditional means of redress to course their concerns and are now abandoning the traditional institutions of redress and they no longer rely on politicians who make empty promises to make things happen for them. People are now taking charge and asserting themselves, a wave that Marx predicted to be a precursor of the people’s taking over a government. II. Source and reference The sources are the obvious discontent of the students against the tuition fee hike and their means of airing their discontent. This can be viewed from their incessant protests, be it in the streets or in their campus or in their gatherings, the vitriolic language they spew against the system that intends to make education a privilidge rather than a right. The anger towards government who are insensitive to their plight that despite of their protestations, still intends to raise tuition fee hike. III. Significance The student protest is important to me because it is an assertion of our right to be educated. If the state will be left on its own without the student’s asserting this basic right of ours, education will be commercialized by its incessant tuition fee increase to the point that education will become a privilege and not a right. They will continue and will nourish this kind of system so that the ruling class will always prevail to further widen the gap between the haves and have nots by making education prohibitive to those who does not have the money to spend on education. This is important to me because this issue is consistent with the ideology and ethos of Marx that the students should continue to wage this class struggle against the oppressive dictat of the state to remove social injustice where the few will only benefit while depriving the many. The mass action taken by the students are significant because it concretely shows that people are already angry at the system and if this will continue, it will not be far fetch that it will evolve into a revolt. One only has to look around, here in Canada and elsewhere around the world. We will see a wave of protest by the working and thinking class demanding social justice and equal fruits of their labor which toppled governments after governments which was long predicted by Marx. Soon enough, the prevailing order of government and society can no longer hold itself against the burgeoning demand of the people and the people will ultimately seize the government to govern themselves that truly we can have a government that is by the people and for the people. The protests should be sustained by whatever social injustice that is happening be it here in Canada or elsewhere in the world. The protest should evolve to a movement where the people willl demand equality, not only in society but also in the share of our fruits of labors where the output of production can be shared among the people who worked for it and not only among those who own the modes of production. Ultimately, these protests that the students have initiated will snowball for they have proven that they are not powerless and can in fact, initiate change. This will permeate in every dimension of society until the government gives in to give way to a true government of people which Marx called from its shambles shall arise a new kingdom that is ruled by its own people. IV. The three perspectives There are three perspectives that I would like to consider. They are the Marxist perspective, anarchist perspective and the social democrat perspective. a. The Marxist perspective – the Marxist perspective posits that education is a right and therefor should be given freely and without any tuition by the government to the people. It is one of the fruits of the people’s labor that should be shared by everybody who is capable of the rigors of the university and not by select few who can afford it. Education from Marxist perspective is dictated not by economic capability to afford but rather as a right that can and should be demanded from the government. As an ideology Communism is a central theme in Karl Marx’s ideology. Though often interchanged with Socialism, Communism is rather different from Socialism in many aspects. Communism is the final stage of Marx’s ideology where the means of production or industry are commonly owned by the proletariat or the working class. Where they would have an unfettered access to the fruit of their production, where the articles of consumption is no longer unevenly distributed, where wage labor is ended and private ownership of the means of production no longer exists. Above all, it is a stage where education is free and guaranteed by the state. It is a stage where social classes or stratification is no more as well as the necessity of a state. Communism is a culmination of a period in history where there will be an abundance of material wealth; where the articles of production will be distributed according to every one’s need. It is a stage where Marx predicted, that will inevitably occur due to the conflicting forces in society which he labeled as dialectical materialism (thesis versus antithesis will result to synthesis). Karl Marx despised the idea of private ownership and capitalism. He believe that in an economic structure where the means of production or industry are owned privately, it will only be managed by the rich and the upper class, calling it as a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” and will only serve their self-interest. And because of these, conflict or social tension will be inevitable and will eventually lead to the downfall of the bourgeoisie. This process of “dialectical materialism”, where the thesis collides with the antithesis will bring out the synthesis or the rise of the masses. Marx argued that these structural contradictions in the private ownership of production by capitalism will cause its own demise, giving birth to Socialism which will ultimately leads to Communism. To quote Marx: In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen" Marx). The result of this conflict or tension will result in a new system called Socialism. This synthesis will topple the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” and will be replaced by the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But this stage is only transitory. In the end, Marx espoused that this will eventually result on the ultimate stage where there will be an abundance of everything; where class distinction is no more that even the existence of states will no longer be necessary. This is already happening. The students protests serve as an antithesis to the present thesis (prevailing system) and if will evolve to a larger movement, will eventually result to a synthesis or toppling of the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” and will be replaced by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which in Canada’s case, will be the working and thinking class. The by-products brought by capitalism and private ownership like urbanization, will increase the number of the working class or proletariat. And as their ranks increases, so will their consciousness. This class consciousness will eventually make them understand that they have to better the system (class struggle) to better their lot. Marx argued that if the private ownership of the means of production will be taken over by the working class, this would inspire a social movement that will benefit everybody equally. This will result in a society without an oppressive class in a system that is less susceptible to cyclical crises. This can only be brought about by the organized actions of working class thus ending capitalism: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (Marx) b. The autonomous social democrat perspective – the social democratic perpective is often referred to as the welfare state perspective where the state provides the social services to its citizens. There is however a difference in the ownership of the modes of production because social democratic perspective tolerates private ownership only that they are heavily taxed and regulated by the state. The working class and proletariat does not necessarily runs the state but by a democratic representative. It differs from communism as espoused by Walden Bello that the struggle is for autonomy from the state not against a particular class as an alternative to communism of fostering social justice realizing that the former cannot be achieved. c. Anarchist – Anarchy is often confused with chaos and violence as a solution to any political quandary (French 1999). This may be partially right with one of its political tool propaganda of the deed which meant the use of force in asserting a political agenda. But this is rather an oversimplification of the anarchist ideology. Perhaps this oversimplification and stereotyping of anarchy is due to its founder’s (Bakunin) preference to “propaganda of the deed”. In his words, Bakunin expressed his preference for an acted propaganda by citing “we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda” (Bakunin). This preference for propaganda of the deeds, coupled with his anarcho-collectivism brand of anarchy which is to destroy all institutions that nurtures an oppressive relationship makes it easy to stereotype Bakunin as a pyromaniac who destroys everything as a solution to any political quandary. But again, this is rather simplistic; for Bakunin, the destruction of the state is not for its own sake but to achieve genuine liberty. With the annihilation of the state, religion and institutions would mean a realization of the people’s assertion to own the mode of production and to even replace the state and to share the fruits of its labour which is education. Anarchy as an ideology is the self-management of an anarchist society can be done when the power which used to be concentrated to the few will be diffused to into the masses. It is structured as opposed to a centralized state that is presupposed by the revolutionary government of Marx when the masses seized the state. Bakunin’s anarchist society would be based on a federation of communes and worker’s councils (Ward 2004). For Bakunin’s anarchist society, the process of the mass struggle against the bourgeois would become the basis of a free society whose power emanates from the bottom upwards by the free association of worker’s federation; “firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal." The councils from bottom to top would be composed of "delegates . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates" (Smith). It will be a truly popular organization that emanates from the bottom of society’s echelon. Power will start from the lowest nucleus of society escalating to the society’s upward stream through federalism which will become the political tool of socialism which is the unfettered and spontaneous organization of the anarchist mainstream life. The exploitation under the capitalist system where the work of another is exploited by another for profit would be replaced by a cooperative production which is voluntary and non-exploitative. Under such condition would people flourish thereby reaching their full potential as nurtured by a society and its universities which do not charge any tuition fee where the modes and instruments of productions and hereditary properties are owned and operated by the people through their self managed organizations of federations and communes (Dolgoff ). V. The Autonomist anarchist Marxist perspective Of these ideologies, I will deploy the Marxist perspective because I believe that people should have a say on how we run the government, school and our economy. At present, we have to bear with minimum representation in meetings where it is often just a token representation where nothing really happens. Also, with how things are going both here in Canada and abroad, mass protests seems to in vogue where several governments has already been toppled. These mass actions and protests are similar to Marx’s antithesis that will conflict with the thesis. The social tension is already happening as what we can see with the students and parents anger towards the unstoppable tuition fee increase. If this will continue, this conflict or tension will result in a new system called Socialism. This synthesis will topple the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” and will be replaced by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or the working class in Canada. But this stage is only transitory. In the end, Marx espoused that this will eventually result on the ultimate stage where there will be an abundance of everything; where class distinction is no more that even the existence of states will no longer be necessary nor do we have to pay our tuition because education is guaranteed by the government. Works Cited Andy Blatchford adn Martin Ouleet. “Quebec Tuition Planned By PQ As Students Protest Education Summit. February 25, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/25/quebec-tuition-pq-education-summit_n_2757308.html Bakuni, Mikhail.Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis. (1870). Dolgoff, Sam. Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Edited by Sam Dolgoff. New York: Vintage paperback. 1971 Marx, Karl. “The Communist Manifesto”. 1848. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/course/mscp.pdf. Smith, Paul B. (2012). Bakunin’s expulsion from the First International. http://thecommune.co.uk/ideas/bakunins-expulsion-from-the-first-international/ Read More