I think that the question that should be asked on the issue of the intellectual in revolution rather than must movements be rooted in a coherent set of ideas and values is, can anyone (i.e. the subaltern) create that coherent set of ethos?
I think the gangs of horny, sociopathic, seemingly immature gangs we see in Baader Meinhof are a perfect example of the fact that a revolution, a successful one at least, must be rooted in coherent values. In the end of Baader Meinhof the new era of “revolutionaries” are disconnected with the leaders and the group seems to be more of a nihilistic terrorism rather than a revolution, shown in the ending scenes. We’ve talked about the revolution being revolved around consolidating a movement through tactics of participation. However, it is not just the crowd that facilitates a successful revolution, but rather the uniting mission, the strengthening initiative that forms the crowd in the first place. However, as we’ve read, the issue is not wether or not these movements need a set of ethos but rather who has the skill set, the ability to create this mission? For Gramsci, he made (in my opinion) the elitist assumption that the masses needed the intellectual. Whereas minds like Fanon or MKV suggest that the intellectual is not an asset to the consolidation of revolutions. For instance Fanon claims that the intellectual is only fully educated once he’s taken a walk amongst the people and learned from them.
All in all I think that it’s dangerous to generalize that each revolution needs the same recipe to be successful as each context has different circumstances. However, in my mind, violence complicates revolution in making the uprising a zero-sum game, as we will learn reading Erica Chenoweth. In these circumstances, I think the risk is higher and thus the need for strategic tactics is heightened. In a community such as Haiti, where the slave community was steeped in battle not theory, the intellectual (in the form of the free colored individuals), was needed to form a sovereign nation. However, in a context of MKV’s argument, the masses had the “organic” mediation of the school teachers to provide the role of the intellectual. The intellectual is needed as there will always be a need for a totalizing vision, however, where that intellectual takes form depends on the context of the movement.
I agrree with you that there needs to be a foundation of intelligent decision making behind planning a revolution, as it’s necessary for keeping a vision alive as the revolution shifts. I also agree with your comment that it’s very difficult to generate an intellectual who is capable of keeping the interests of the public in mind when working on revolutionary action. I’d even say that it’s impossible. Maybe, as intellectuals studying the patterns of previous revolutions, we place too much emphasis on the effect and necessity of a single leader and what a revolution needs is a united group of organic intellectuals because to place the burden of leading a revolution on one person is too much power and responsibilty. But maybe generating an effective democratic body for a revolution in the midst of a fast-paced change is too tall of an order.