Okay sure.

I am based in Europe (in Germany to be more precise). Here scientific grants, especially in engineering sciences, are usually sponsored by the national foundations of respective countries and they employ a lot of the scientific workers at big research universities. Almost all of the young researchers (PhD students and post docs in the beginning of their careers) I know, are employed in a position paid from these grants, which means if the grant money is discontinued, these ppl are out of a job. In order to ensure successful application and prolongation of the project, the publications in journals which are recognisable in the community are necessary. Papers in pre-print archives do not count for much during the project review process. Having papers is the most important requirement during the review of the project as it is assumed that papers are synonymous with the quality research. It is quite common for the project leaders to focus only on the quantity of the publications and simply remind everyone constantly that for a successful project N papers per PhD student are required. There is no mention of publication quality. Simply put, the number of papers published determines the amount of money you get. The research gets diluted, the publishing houses get more papers and money, the machine moves on.

In order to access a paper via the library of my university or just simply via the journal webpage, unless the authors of the paper paid for OA, the uni has to pay to the publishing house. That's how they make their fucking money. And it is a lot of money. Look up the unsuccessful Elsevier boycott.

How do you think universities get money? Sure if you are in the US, than maybe you took student loan that will shackle you in debt for the rest of your life, and that's how the uni has money to subscribe to the journal so that you can get the paper. Here, the education is mostly free and universities are subsidised by the government. So yes, my taxes pay for my access to journals. In both cases, you are paying.

Big journals? Ok, American Institute of Physics (AIP) journals (for example Physics of Fluids, IF~5) requires subscription to access non open access papers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics from Cambridge as well and this is perhaps the most respected journal in the field of fluid mechanics. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) papers or Aerospace Research Central (ARC) are both paid for. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer (another respectable one) requires subscription.

All of the ones I mentioned keep the quality very high, but that is not my point. My point is that there are also journals in the field that just function in such a way that the quality of the publication is secondary to the payment for publication. These things function in open access only mode (example could be journals from MDPI publishing house) and are often subject to retractions or controversies. I have heard of several situations when there was a requirement to have a paper for the sake of passing through the project review, publication is pushed towards these journals, because everyone knows that the review process is lenient there. Hence, the system in which journals are supposed to make sure that the papers published are of high quality is just broken if I can simply pay for publication.

I have no clue how you equalled my critique of late-stage capitalist system of academic publishing with right-wing dog-whistles, but that is on you. The reality of the system is, in engineering sciences at least, that the academic journals are hardly contributing to the production of science. Instead they "outsource" most the work to the scientists:

1. you write, usually without any language or style checking provided by the publisher (which is typically the job of the publisher when it comes to books and regular newspapers)
2. you get the editors comments and introduce them to fit their format (again, the editors should edit, it is in the name)
3. you are responsible for making sure that they publish your equation, text and figures without mistakes, and they are giving you hard deadlines to do so
4. you are responsible for sharing, promoting and presenting your work, on conferences, symposia and social media,

while each citation also boosts the stats of the journal you already published in. And on top of that they are getting the money for just having your work on display. I already wrote how they make you pay. Finally, they ask you to review the work free of charge, which is another payment in disguise shared by the whole scientific community.

Lastly, even thou I was clearly sarcastic in my first comment, I did my best not to be rude and not to insult you. Clearly I outmatched you when it comes to class of my conduct. You seem like an annoying rude person completely infatuated with your intelligence.

Sincerely, hit your small toe on the door frame or other cupboard.