I call them losers in this article, and while some may be objectively so, as in the case of the homeless, the imprisoned, or the severely mentally disordered, others may be "losers" only according to the herd's self-serving judgment. So that category can be subjective too.
The distinction is between those who rule and eventually dominate society, and those whom society leaves behind. Both are social outsiders. Martin Luther King was a spiritual leader but that alienated him from segregationist society, as did his skin colour for which he was despised. He was assassinated, after all. So both subjectively and objectively he was a loser who tried to be a leader/winner.
You can compare him to the character of Jesus who was also a loser, an oppressed Jew who was executed, but who tried to be a spiritual leader. Jesus's movement took off, largely because of his martyrdom, and King's movement for civil rights also eventually changed much of the United States, although he obviously didn't end American racism (and he didn't work alone).
There are evidently more complicated cases. It's not like you're either wholly a dominator, a complete loser, or an anonymous herd member. That's a model that simplifies matters. You can be a loser who tries to lead, or a leader who falls from power. Or you can be a fake dominator who's really a pawn, like George W Bush who was used as a puppet by Dick Cheney.
There are also different kinds of "losers" or marginalized individuals, including enlightened ones.
Still, I think this model clarifies more than it obscures.