In a way, I believe the idea of a "just, meritocratic world" masks the actual underlying problem -- that we do not have measures in place to prevent individuals

In a way, I believe the idea of a "just, meritocratic world" masks the actual underlying problem -- that we do not have measures in place to prevent individuals or small groups from gaining grossly disproportionate levels of power in our society. We wouldn't need to keep the natural human inclination of socialising and networking in check if all it ever resulted in was a few nicer looking photo books. In my interactions outside of professional life, I find such happy coincidences of skills and connections to lead to outcomes that simply enrich everyone, like how this photo album surely pleased the commenter, the gf, the school teachers, etc. Rarely does anything like this hurt anyone. Sure, someone might be a little more popular in a social circle for a time because of some cool thing they made with their cool friends, but these kinds of things are transient and -- in a context of conditions of fairness -- some other person with some other cool new thing will eventually displace them. In a capitalist world where "cool new things" can lead to concentration of wealth that can be guarded and leveraged to create more, then networking (familial/nepotistic or otherwise) can lead to unfair outcomes. But the idea of a meritocratic system still leads to the same unfair outcomes, just decided on a different and still somewhat arbitrary set of requirements.