What do you think?
Rate this book
Jan Waclaw Machajski: A Radical Critic of the Russian Intelligentsia and Socialism
Jan Waclaw Machajski's (1866-1926) political doctrine, known as Makhaevism, was a synthesis of several revolutionary theories in Western and Eastern Europe: Marxism, anarchism, and syndicalism. His criticism of the intelligentsia and theory of a “new class” were influential to Communism and helped to create a hostility that culminated in Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930s.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1989
1 person is currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 23, 2025
As far as I can ascertain, this is the only work in English dealing specifically with Machajski and Makhaevism.
Shatz gives some background into Machajski's life. His birth in Russian Poland, what little is known about his parents, his education, his introduction to Marxism, and so on.
But the core of the book is Machajski's political philosophy and its influence on contemporary Russia. Shatz notes that Machajski gave form and gave life to the anti-intelligentsia sentiment smouldering among the workers.
To a large extent this is something like a social history of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia. There is much information about strikes, about the Revolution of 1905, the foundation and growth of the intelligentsia, the ideas of Bakunin and Herzen, the Marxism of Plekhanov, the schemes of Zubatov, loads of information.
A great irony, as Shatz notes, is that Machajski was himself part of the intelligentsia, and suffered for it through Siberian exile. For a time his works were widely read by Russian revolutionaries, and Shatz believes that Lenin was introduced to Machajski via Trotsky, who met Machajski in Siberia.
Shatz criticises Machajski for failing to provide any positive programme, he does not have anything to replace the intelligentsia or the state, so that even those sympathetic to Makhaevism eventually moved on to something more concrete.
In its essentials Makhaevism posits that the intelligentsia is its own social class, which Marx denied. This class is only a false friend of the workers, as it is parasitic and survives, like the bourgeoisie, on exploiting the labour of the proletariat. Machajski suggests that the intelligentsia only wished to use the proletariat to replace the capitalists with their own rule.
This was remarkably prophetic, and it should be noted that intelligentsia here means not intellectual, but anybody who did mental work. That is, not manual labour. Anyone who enjoyed an education.
Machajski felt that the intelligentsia kept knowledge to itself, in order to perpetuate their social superiority. He seemed to suggest that knowledge was a form of capital.
There was much debate about this, and the concluding section on theoretical views regarding the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy as a social class are particularly fascinating, as Shatz gives the opinions of heavy hitters like Trotsky and Djilas.
The suggestion that Stalin was a Makhaevist in a way, which Shatz makes, by eliminating the intelligentsia and replacing them with a new cadre of managerial elite is interesting, but somehow not very satisfying.
Shatz suggests that the rise of the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia in early Soviet days defied Marxist explanation because these elements of society simply did not exist when Marx was examining the rise of capitalism.
Shatz believes that theorists had to try to go beyond Marx, which is perhaps the most suitable place to end this review.
In our own post-industrial age it seems that education is the means for social mobility, but Machajski would probably not be surprised to learn that education is still to a large degree monopolised by specific classes, and withheld from the proletariat, or whatever the mass of humans constitute in post-industrial society.
Like the intelligentsia in Machajski's time, the social classes today perhaps defy classic Marxian classification. It is hard to see how everyone with a college degree could be part of the intelligentsia, or of the bourgeoisie. A new middle class perhaps. But Marxists will have to figure that out.
In the meantime it is well-known that students from higher income families have a much higher chance of graduating high school and college, even if they have mediocre or even low test scores, than students from lower income families, even if they have high test scores.
Machajski argued that intelligentsia did not necessarily mean intelligent, it just meant the inclusion within a certain educated class. Education defined by institution, and in fact Machajski thought many of the intelligentsia were downright unintelligent.
In the contemporary United States it seems that this criticism is still applicable. Because education is more of an institutional phenomenon than an intellectual one. Unintelligent students from well-off families will still receive a superior education and, presumably, enjoy comfortable positions with comparatively high pay and comparatively low manual labour. While even exceptionally intelligent students from lower income families are still likely to drop out and eke by with low-paying manual labour jobs.
I felt that this in itself made Machajski relevant and still worth reading today. He may still have some things to teach us.
Shatz gives some background into Machajski's life. His birth in Russian Poland, what little is known about his parents, his education, his introduction to Marxism, and so on.
But the core of the book is Machajski's political philosophy and its influence on contemporary Russia. Shatz notes that Machajski gave form and gave life to the anti-intelligentsia sentiment smouldering among the workers.
To a large extent this is something like a social history of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia. There is much information about strikes, about the Revolution of 1905, the foundation and growth of the intelligentsia, the ideas of Bakunin and Herzen, the Marxism of Plekhanov, the schemes of Zubatov, loads of information.
A great irony, as Shatz notes, is that Machajski was himself part of the intelligentsia, and suffered for it through Siberian exile. For a time his works were widely read by Russian revolutionaries, and Shatz believes that Lenin was introduced to Machajski via Trotsky, who met Machajski in Siberia.
Shatz criticises Machajski for failing to provide any positive programme, he does not have anything to replace the intelligentsia or the state, so that even those sympathetic to Makhaevism eventually moved on to something more concrete.
In its essentials Makhaevism posits that the intelligentsia is its own social class, which Marx denied. This class is only a false friend of the workers, as it is parasitic and survives, like the bourgeoisie, on exploiting the labour of the proletariat. Machajski suggests that the intelligentsia only wished to use the proletariat to replace the capitalists with their own rule.
This was remarkably prophetic, and it should be noted that intelligentsia here means not intellectual, but anybody who did mental work. That is, not manual labour. Anyone who enjoyed an education.
Machajski felt that the intelligentsia kept knowledge to itself, in order to perpetuate their social superiority. He seemed to suggest that knowledge was a form of capital.
There was much debate about this, and the concluding section on theoretical views regarding the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy as a social class are particularly fascinating, as Shatz gives the opinions of heavy hitters like Trotsky and Djilas.
The suggestion that Stalin was a Makhaevist in a way, which Shatz makes, by eliminating the intelligentsia and replacing them with a new cadre of managerial elite is interesting, but somehow not very satisfying.
Shatz suggests that the rise of the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia in early Soviet days defied Marxist explanation because these elements of society simply did not exist when Marx was examining the rise of capitalism.
Shatz believes that theorists had to try to go beyond Marx, which is perhaps the most suitable place to end this review.
In our own post-industrial age it seems that education is the means for social mobility, but Machajski would probably not be surprised to learn that education is still to a large degree monopolised by specific classes, and withheld from the proletariat, or whatever the mass of humans constitute in post-industrial society.
Like the intelligentsia in Machajski's time, the social classes today perhaps defy classic Marxian classification. It is hard to see how everyone with a college degree could be part of the intelligentsia, or of the bourgeoisie. A new middle class perhaps. But Marxists will have to figure that out.
In the meantime it is well-known that students from higher income families have a much higher chance of graduating high school and college, even if they have mediocre or even low test scores, than students from lower income families, even if they have high test scores.
Machajski argued that intelligentsia did not necessarily mean intelligent, it just meant the inclusion within a certain educated class. Education defined by institution, and in fact Machajski thought many of the intelligentsia were downright unintelligent.
In the contemporary United States it seems that this criticism is still applicable. Because education is more of an institutional phenomenon than an intellectual one. Unintelligent students from well-off families will still receive a superior education and, presumably, enjoy comfortable positions with comparatively high pay and comparatively low manual labour. While even exceptionally intelligent students from lower income families are still likely to drop out and eke by with low-paying manual labour jobs.
I felt that this in itself made Machajski relevant and still worth reading today. He may still have some things to teach us.
Displaying 1 of 1 review