The trouble with professional networking is professionalism. Networking for activist purposes is an unalloyed good. To the extent that there’s currently rivalry between the amateur and professional realms (software, journalism, encyclopaediae, others?), I’m definitely rooting for the amateurs. Admittedly, I was once one of those “I want to be a professional when I grow up” kids. While the professional class is a lesser evil than the managerial class, it is still an elite class. While the entrepreneurial class is a lesser evil than the financier class, it is still an elite class. In fact, the complaints I hear by entrepreneurs about drumming up financing are very, very reminiscent of the J.O.B. application process. If members of the entrepreneurial class are serious about scoring some public relations points, they should try applying the Golden Rule by treating workers they way they wish financiers would treat them.
The upshot is that connectivity is privilege. Not a privilege that should be abolished or rolled back, but one that should nevertheless be constantly recognized, addressed and struggled with in our daily lives. Disequilibria in connectivity leads to compounded relative inequality and implicit power dynamics, but because connectivity is what animates altruism (which provides absolute advances for all) the egalitarian solution in any context is always to expand connectivity for all.
If your revolution doesn’t place a pretty high priority on maximizing inclusivity, then I don’t want any part in it. The well-connected we will always have with us, but a bit of noblesse oblige might not be a bad idea. Mentors for the rest of us, if you will. And maybe, just maybe, we can get rid of the civil service bureaucracy without getting rid of the ideal of meritocracy.
In defense of anagorism 
Again I argue that merit and expertise (aka professionalism) are not evils in and of themselves but only when they serve as facades or euphemisms for actual evils like corruption, injustice, and exploitation. We don’t all have to always work for the good of all, either. I prefer appropriate and reciprocal checks and balances between individual and collective interests, allowing a dynamic tension/equilibrium among diverse interests rather than superimposing static or excessive up-front design. Corrections can then be added only as needed to prevent imbalance (inequity) from exceeding desired limits. Distributed trial and error, with appropriate empirical feedback, can often beat up-front design and top-down command and control.
PR