The further question Josh raises of the importance of the status of the leader of a revolutionary movement is very appealing to me and reminds me of other cases of revolutionary leaders we have analyzed, such as the Baader Meinhof case. We often see the visionaries of the revolutionary movements rise to leadership positions within the movements. Thus, as we’ve seen within the Baader Meinhof case, the most radical members of a movement end up leading the movement, which leaves the movement susceptible to becoming much more extreme than what the initial supporters are willing to stand for and brings up the worry that the movement will lose the support that it once had behind it, the further it progresses. On the other hand, if the leader of a movement lessens their radical aims in order to create soft change, they face the issue of potentially losing support because they’ve become “institutionalised” and no longer represent the needs of the people, as MLK has been criticized for in the later parts of the Civil Rights movement by followers who left to support the actions of SNCC, Malcolm X, or the Black Panthers instead. In a lot of ways, the radicality of a leader is important in preserving the fire behind a revolution and keeping the support alive, so it is a difficult reputation to abandon. This brings into question the durability of a campaign led by a highly radical leader, as with Allende, when the exceptional radical opinions of the leader necessarily imply that they don’t represent the more moderate views of the masses behind the rebellion. Therefore, does a “revolutionary” leader need to concede their vision in order to maintain support and have any hope for achieving moderate change, or in giving up their revolutionary status do they also risk losing the original supporters that brought them to their leadership positions? It seems like a lose-lose situation for creating distinct revolutionary change unless a revolutionary leader is willing to (and somehow has the support to) use their minority of radical support to ignore the claims of the masses to further their vision. Otherwise, as Jake and Josh pointed out, maybe gradual, institutionalized change is what’s necessary, though it may come at the cost of losing their original supporters.