He was happy to write books on what society should do and how it should be run, but never talked to the people whose lives he claimed to speak for. He saw no need. That's intellectuals running society, right?
He was politically active only in a very superficial way. He engaged in rhetoric, but that wasn't the same as engaging with democratic politics (which living in London he could have done).
And how does all of this translate to him thinking that intellectuals should run society?
Also, he was politically active, but you know that since you read his biography...