As the preface to the above link states, the basic ideas are
A. “Intellectuals” aren’t a class unto themselves. They are organizers, leaders, educators, etc. In one word “facilitators.” They serve as the “passive” arm of control, compared to the “active” arm of the violent systems like the police and military, and engage in this by promoting hegemony [a Gramscian concept also found in his works].
B. Intellectuals are split into two categories. Organic and traditional. Traditional Intellectuals are Intellectuals who emerge, through one form or another through history. This includes the scientist, philosophers and ecclesiastics [religous functionaries]. They emerge as organic Intellectuals at the time, but although their social group fades, they dont. However they retain their respected position, and thus have superstructural influence [for example, take scholar officials vs christian priests. Both were organic Intellectuals of the feudal societies, and in fact organically bound to them through the land systems in place at the time. The aristocratic social group has faded since the Bourgeois revolutions in europe and the development of the capitalist mode of production, however the ecclesiastics have maintained a very obvious superstructural influence to this day. In comparison, Scholar-officials in china were extremely influential as organic Intellectuals of However, the examination system was ended in 1905 and, with the death of the dynastic system in china in 1912, the scholar official position died as it had no use to anyone.] Organic Intellectuals are Intellectuals that from from social groups themselves and serve to develop and innovative the function and form of their class society. [ I.e, company board members [CEOs, CFOs, etc.], economists, and factory technicians are organic Intellectuals of the Bourgeoisie. Or a communist party Cadre would be an organic Intellectual of the proletariat.] which “are for the most part “specialisations” of partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has brought into prominence.”
C.Classes, with the exception of the peasantry, gain and lose power by assimilating parts of the traditional Intellectuals to their class interests. The peasantry doesn’t have organic Intellectuals because…its the peasantry, they can’t ever be simple.
D. Political parties are one of the ways, and in some cases the only way, organic Intellectuals are made for certain social groups. Political parties are then also the way through which the dominant group in a society welds themselves to the traditional Intellectuals.
So overall, in response to your question, I think the answer is that intellectuals aren’t really a class unto themselves, and are more categorized by their systemic interactions. The organic Intellectuals of capitalist society are definitely reactionary [like how many priests were in relation to the Bourgeois revolutions], but overall the reactionary-ness of Intellectuals is Moreso an indication of the quantity of power. At the very least it’s best not to treat them as their own grouping, since that’s exactly what the Intellectuals own idealistic conception of themselves are.
Like I said, it’s probably also best if you read it yourself.
1.The link I gave you doesn’t actually have that work attached to it, sorry. But here’s a seperate marxist.org link that gives you the section I’m referring too. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/problems/intellectuals.htm]. I highly encourage you read it yourself.
A. “Intellectuals” aren’t a class unto themselves. They are organizers, leaders, educators, etc. In one word “facilitators.” They serve as the “passive” arm of control, compared to the “active” arm of the violent systems like the police and military, and engage in this by promoting hegemony [a Gramscian concept also found in his works].
B. Intellectuals are split into two categories. Organic and traditional. Traditional Intellectuals are Intellectuals who emerge, through one form or another through history. This includes the scientist, philosophers and ecclesiastics [religous functionaries]. They emerge as organic Intellectuals at the time, but although their social group fades, they dont. However they retain their respected position, and thus have superstructural influence [for example, take scholar officials vs christian priests. Both were organic Intellectuals of the feudal societies, and in fact organically bound to them through the land systems in place at the time. The aristocratic social group has faded since the Bourgeois revolutions in europe and the development of the capitalist mode of production, however the ecclesiastics have maintained a very obvious superstructural influence to this day. In comparison, Scholar-officials in china were extremely influential as organic Intellectuals of However, the examination system was ended in 1905 and, with the death of the dynastic system in china in 1912, the scholar official position died as it had no use to anyone.] Organic Intellectuals are Intellectuals that from from social groups themselves and serve to develop and innovative the function and form of their class society. [ I.e, company board members [CEOs, CFOs, etc.], economists, and factory technicians are organic Intellectuals of the Bourgeoisie. Or a communist party Cadre would be an organic Intellectual of the proletariat.] which “are for the most part “specialisations” of partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has brought into prominence.”
C.Classes, with the exception of the peasantry, gain and lose power by assimilating parts of the traditional Intellectuals to their class interests. The peasantry doesn’t have organic Intellectuals because…its the peasantry, they can’t ever be simple.
D. Political parties are one of the ways, and in some cases the only way, organic Intellectuals are made for certain social groups. Political parties are then also the way through which the dominant group in a society welds themselves to the traditional Intellectuals.
So overall, in response to your question, I think the answer is that intellectuals aren’t really a class unto themselves, and are more categorized by their systemic interactions. The organic Intellectuals of capitalist society are definitely reactionary [like how many priests were in relation to the Bourgeois revolutions], but overall the reactionary-ness of Intellectuals is Moreso an indication of the quantity of power. At the very least it’s best not to treat them as their own grouping, since that’s exactly what the Intellectuals own idealistic conception of themselves are.
Like I said, it’s probably also best if you read it yourself.