I’m sorry, but this has nothing to do with capitalism. If we were under a king, you’d still have to schmooze the king. Socialism may give you money to feed yourself, but it won’t pay you to do science. An economic system doesn’t prevent you from needing interpersonal skills.
Comment on Hero
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Isn’t this true for all jobs? Specially corporate jobs? It’s still horrible, but that’s capitalism for you.
tastysnacks@programming.dev 5 months ago
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Socialism wouldn’t pay you to do science, but it would give you a universal basic income, so you could do science without needing to be paid if you wanted
friendlymessage@feddit.de 5 months ago
Most science can’t be done on a basic income, you need funds to buy equipment, to operate equipment, and maintain equipment. Most science also can’t be done alone. You have to be able to sell others on your ideas, in any economical system that is not post-scarcity.
tastysnacks@programming.dev 5 months ago
These scientists aren’t schmoozing for a paycheck. Research is expensive. They’re getting funding for equipment and personnel.
Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 5 months ago
Speaking as a Socialist, no, lmao.
First off, UBI’s are not Socialism. In fact, they are antithetical to Socialism. They are Social Democracy, which is objectively the moderate wing of Fascism, the standard borne by those who think we can make a better society by instituting ranked-choice voting, net neutrality, and a 32-hour workweek without ever looking past the symptoms into the actual problems inherent in the system.
Under Socialism, the vast, vast majority of science will be done (as it is/was, in the USSR and China) by government or government-funded research organizations, where materials are supplied to them and their research is guided by the public interest.
Cranks doing “science” in their garages and basements in their spare time will still just be cranks.
thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 5 months ago
Across the board, we have let people who are primarily motivated by accumulating wealth and power accumulate wealth and power unchecked, and then make all the rules for how everything around them works.
These are the last people you want making the rules if you desire sane and sustainable social environments.
The best thing we could collectively do for ourselves is strip and block these kinds of people from positions of authority on the sheer basis that they seek it so eagerly, tell them to their faces WHY, tell them they can’t have it back and that they can ONLY have it back when they stop wanting it so badly, no matter HOW HARD they cry about it and then treat them with the same kind of disdain they’ve treated people who don’t want to play by THEIR rules for centuries.
ameancow@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It absolutely is like this in every corporate setting.
The key difference here is that if you don’t play the game at TechCo Incorporated and spend the next ten years just entering data and being passed over, people will say “That’s corporate life for you” and give you support and sympathy.
If you don’t play the game in your academic field then you’re “wasting enough money to buy a house” and that tends to raise people’s ire or at least interest. It brings to mind all kinds of negative stereotypes in your own mind and makes you ashamed to be someone who doesn’t want to play the social game.
Snowclone@lemmy.world 5 months ago
If you want to be in any creative field like art or literature, you have to be able to run a social media business. It’s like 80% PR and 20% the creative work you actually want to do.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
The same problem exists in socialism
You need to convince people what you’re doing is worth doing. Whether that is economically or societally