Connections can be divided into trust issues (you know well that the person would conduct the desirable way you want) and creating the possibility of anything (given the ability of the contact). Both of these can be attributed to the evolution of homo sapiens and can be useful and detrimental to humankind.
After the Czechoslovakia Velvet Revolution, the old communist cadres had connections in the Soviet Union, therefore unlimited access to financial resources; they trusted each other and the very relationship was the reason why the business could have happened. Some of them were used by Czech oligarchs when starting their crooked business.
People also form connections in business and employment. They appoint appropriate people according to whether a connection is good or not.
Modeling, music industry, movie industry, science, start-ups, sport. All of them depend on connections.
No start-up that is important for the ruling elites (so they can spy upon us in this golden age of espionage) can be lifted without proper connections from the super-rich controlling the US. Psychological assessments are made so the “creators” won’t be doing problems later. It is somehow like Putin’s Russia – nobody can be enriched without Putin’s personal approval.
Science also has its circles of the men that speak to each other. Powerful positions backed by the informal US rulers and prominent scholars that talk to each other based on their credits. People often mistakenly claim that science (academia) is not as corrupt as politics is. And they are completely wrong.
Also, Wall Street (aka the super-rich families) and its banks or companies are based on family connections exclusively (perhaps except for Goldman Sachs) when they fight for influence a putting appropriate people in given positions. It can be said about the family companies that they create a huge portion of the market.
And what about connections in politics? These are beyond connections but rather fulfill the criteria of patron-client relationships. The German and British politics? Are you a regular citizen? It would be hard for you to go up the ladder without prominent circles (for example, Eton). People go into politics to make contacts (so they reciprocate their services for them by putting them into highly money-making positions).
However, if we realistically take politics for what it is (the super-rich controlling everything) and people given their inability to control the politicians cannot make a change, raising a successor for a highly prominent politician can be a moral act (from the common morality standpoint).
The trust issue can be an asset of connections as manufacturers trust their supplier or highly-ranked banking manager may be trustworthy. And the latter factor is that something is created by the contact.
Human connections are in the vast majority detrimental for humankind because they destroy free competition and fair play and are the path to patron-client relationships. However, despite the fact they may be morally acceptable in some situations.
Leave a Reply