Leaders don't start movements, they might think they do, but it is agitators that start movements.

Oh definitely. However, leaders appear because they're necessary for a movement to succeed.

it is never the leaders that inject power and broad appeal into a movement. It is the agitators that do.

I'd say it takes two to tango there. Agitators disseminate ideas and give the people the ideas and intellectual tools they need to resist, while leaders and organizations provide the material support, numbers and organizational power they need to resist. Leaders also, by virtue of being the side that does things (as seen from an independent observer), give movements legitimacy by showing that the movement exists (it's not just lofty ideals) and is capable of effecting change. For an extreme example, under a military dictatorship it can be assumed that most of the population is already agitated and "radicalized," yet nothing happens because there's no credible leadership for the agitated population to rally around.

To put it another way, leaders are what you need in a struggle against a political near-peer opponent to win. However when in an environment where your political opponent is far more powerful, one might say catastrophically more powerful, the best strategy is different.

Completely true.

Agitators are what you need in a resistance, preferably those agitators are just everyday people everywhere getting into conversations with people around them about how things could be different and how being exasperated is actually very sensible right now.

Now you lost me. There are two kinds of power: Institutional power and popular power, and the core objective of a resistance movement is to gain the latter and then convert it to the former. I'd argue that the American resistance/progressive movement has more than enough steam to be a superior force to the Trump regime in terms of popular power. Therefore it's now necessary to use that popular power to seize institutional power, which requires leaders. The leaders don't need to be politicians running for office; they can be everyday people organizing protests, strikes and other resistance activities, and I think this latter kind is what America needs and sorely lacks right now.

Interestingly, I think this is actually the precise moment that Bernie Sanders and AOC are with their tour of massive public speeches attempting to transition from a resistance strategy to a more peer-to-peer strategy of directly challenging power and building broad based appeal and consensus to stage a legitimate claim for physical and ideological leadership of the democratic party or at least whatever party will ultimately dismantle it. Yes I know this is literally just agitating, but it is the kind of agitating you do when you are getting people ready to change the status quo and you want to establish broad based support and desire for it so that people are DEMANDING on the streets the policies future Bernie Sanders and AOC like politicians will be advocating for in the halls of power.

If this ends up being true then I'll have to admit I'm wrong, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. That said, someone still needs to be in the streets protecting the right to free and fair elections so those Bernie and AOC-like politicians can actually win after gaining popular support.