I'd swear there was something similiar in these two statements...

[elfs]

First:

I define the revolutionary spirit as the belief that we can and should radically transform the world for the better. It spurns compromise and necessary evils, opting instead for creative solutions and consistent morality. It ever struggles against restraints and limitations.

Second:

Her hero must not place his wish primarily within others or attempt or desire anything that requires primarily the exercise of the will of others. If he attempts that, he is out of a creator's province and in that of the second-hander. This is not, properly speaking, a moral imperative, because no obligation has been established to try to be creative. But her hero is creative, and that is why, in addition to never sacrificing his interests for another's, he will never ask others to sacrifice their interests for his. Much like the Nietzschean superman, the hero cannot be predatory or exploitative; this would not give him what he wants, because no one outside himself has it to give.

The first is from QueerSingularity, one of those "more-Eganesque than thou" transhumanist sites that provide me with fodder for stories (indeed, a huge raft of stuff is there for Fallen Angel, if I ever get back to writing), and is a paraphrase of Karl Marx. The second is from National Review, and is a paraphrase of the ideals of Ayn Rand.

They weren't so different.

Comments

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

so, the magic was inside us, all along?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Essentially. The Marx is externalizing, the Rand internalizing, but they both come from the same place: an arbitrary definition of humanness that appealed to each writer individually (and ultimately to their fans), but a definition of humanness that was far narrower than what well-traveled people would suggest.

The Rand piece is entertaining because the writer realizes that when Rand turned her gaze to the outside world, she confronted it with such outright loathing and hatred that she couldn't even aspire to art.

No such introspection appears in the piece that starts off with Marx.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

The National Review excerpt reminds me of a woo-woo pop psychology site called something like "Self-Bonding."

[elfs.livejournal.com]

And the Marxist one doesn't? That seems capricious.