(1) the segment of the subjective productive forces, the group of active subjects, that first develop a comprehensive, radical awareness of the existing social conditions (conditions that impose a high burden on people, social costs, etc., that push us all on a catastrophic course) and an alternative vision, thus taking the initiative to change those conditions and
(3) the whole of the subjective productive forces, the immediate producers, the collective agency, whose conscious, sustained practice is ultimately required to actually change the social conditions for good.
The individuals and social groups who first articulate the rationale for a radical opposition to the status quo are not typically the same people who can actually, through their united, coordinated action, change the social conditions. Beyond mere resistance, a broader, enlightened opposition to the status quo typically arises first in areas where people are not necessarily the most directly affected.
In the anarchist or left libertarian traditions, people tend to act as if this vertical division of labor within the movement, between those who jump start the process and those who follow, is nonexistent or can be easily dismantled. Historically, that hasn't proved to be the case. This division has deep roots. Moreover, the conditions required to ultimately tackle it and dismantle it may not exist yet. Trotsky's metaphor of the many attackers applies. If we cannot disarm them all at once, we need to start by disarming the ones that represent the clearest and most present danger.
To the extent a minority (usually intellectuals, students, professionals, people with time and handy intellectual resources) emerge as effective "leaders" of a popular movement, their "leadership" is historically justified only to the extent that the actions of the minority are oriented towards smashing the very inequalities, vertical division of labor, etc. on which their "leadership" has been erected. In practice, that involves a commitment to the interest of the most disadvantaged. If the leaders don't act to abolish the social disadvantage of the majority, then they are no more "leaders" but bureaucrats.
In the U.S., the Republicans have been successful at splitting some sectors of the working class from the intellectuals. That's the toxic role of anti-intellectualism in U.S. culture, whose reverse of the coin is, yes, elitism, scorn of regular working class Americans by urban, educated, younger people. These differences are real and the left should be careful in handling the natural conflict of interest between intellectuals and rank-and-file workers. It's of a different nature than the conflict of both of them against the ruling class. A workable unity between the intellectual, radical (and largely white!) opposition to the status quo and the mere day-to-day resistance against its worst effects down the social scale is indispensable to advance.