It's the same argument that was used to restrict voting to landowners. It's a fallacy. Lots of people are careless or misguided even with their money and there is no indication that rich people, who are those that can afford unsubsidised higher education, are better at running a country than poorer ones. And even if that were not the case, you don't spend public money like a family budget.

I am not quite sure how rewriting history somehow validates your argument. The USSR was in a very specific situation and you'll never know how a democracy would have fared. In all likelihood, a democracy would not have ended up in that specific situation anyway.