I posted this entry in the blog's glossary a year ago, yesterday. My thanks to Simon Slade for reminding me.
When there is so much discussion of what is called ‘defence' at present, I think it is worth recalling that much of what is being said by so many on this issue is being manufactured for profit and gain by a few at the cost to most people in the world. That is what happens in what I have described as an 'Age of Aggression'.
The Age of Aggression
The age of aggression is the contemporary era of political economy, defined by the aggressive dominance of corporate and ultra-wealthy interests over democratic institutions, public discourse, and resource allocation.
The Age of Aggression marks the latest phase in the evolution of modern capitalism, succeeding the post-war Age of Compassion and the neoliberal Age of Indifference. It began with the rise of figures such as Donald Trump and has intensified through the influence of billionaires, global corporations, and tech elites whose power now eclipses that of many governments.
In this era, political economy—understood not simply as the study of who gets what, but why they get it—is shaped by force rather than consent. Competition in ideas, particularly in economics and politics, has been all but eliminated. Neoliberal orthodoxy reigns unchallenged, and dissent is sidelined.
The wealthy and powerful now assert their interests with open contempt for democracy and the public good. Control of media, technology, and narrative allows them to dictate terms while rendering the concerns of ordinary people irrelevant. This is an era not merely of inequality, but of active suppression and exclusion.
The Age of Aggression is thus not just about economics or politics—it is about the use of economic and cultural power as tools of domination. It will, inevitably, end. Aggression always does. But until a new politics of compassion and care emerges, this is the world we must navigate—and resist.
I have added glossary entries on the Age of Compassion and the Age of Indifference today, to support and match this one.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Might we also be in an age of considerably unprinciped main stream media reporting?
As much as I agree with that, the aggression is a symptom of something deeper – I think that we are also living in an age of revenge or even ‘revanchism’ where we are seeing ‘a policy or political doctrine aimed at a revenge or the reversal of the losses incurred in previous political or military defeats’.
I think that Neo-liberalism was the first ‘reaction’ to this, in its rejection of progressive ideas after two world wars that effectively increased the power of the state, but also the way in which World War 1 and 2 ended certainly did not mean the end of hostilities – enmities still existed and Nazism increased homogeneity in European nations increasing the likelihood of the nationalism we see today. The big issue for Europe was to allow the Americans to dominate their politics thereafter. I’m afraid the Zionists have also sought their revenge – the oil shock of the early 1970s and right to what we see in the Middle East right now, to Putin’s behaviour and his designs on former Soviet territories. Last night on C4 news was some ancient looking woman from NATO being interviewed telling us that we needed to get ready for war, but said nothing about leadership and politics doing its job to support the peace. And she basically said that we must cut spending elsewhere to pay for this. Cui Bono?
Sorry to be bleak but we are dancing with death at the moment – well some of us will be made to dance with it, others will make huge amounts of money. All I see is insanity everywhere.
For very useful, pertinent perspective, I would like to recommend my current reading, The Price of Peace – Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes. https://www.zacharydcarter.com/
Keynes lived through the aggressions of two world wars. He argued that global peace requires financial and monetary fairness. Trade imbalances and deep economic disparities between countries inherently create environments of winners and losers, which breed geopolitical conflict.
More than that, Keynes was anti-authoritarian to the core, and he was much more than an economist. He had the notion that governments should serve the people.
It is a good book , I agree
I think that is a fair summary by Martha as to what Keynes was all about and why the long revanchist push back really began from the 1970’s oil shock – which was the crisis the Neo-libs were waiting for to be precise (although American empire building exported law concerning the rights of shareholders arguably started to chip away at democracies around the world as they effectively asset stripped where they went). Crisis comes in many forms and is the friend of undemocracy.
Have you noticed one of the latest evil tropes going around? It’s how many prime ministers we’ve had since whenever. Why do I mention this? Well, think about what is happening over the pond in America and what Trump has been up to and his designs on being president for ever. What about Putin and his’president for life’ status? I wonder if the next idea in Britain will be 10 year/15 year premiership turns? I wonder if it will be Farage who introduces that with authoritarian millionaire backed funding when he gets into power?
‘Strong and stable’? Hmmm…….for whom? Capital always likes a level playing field – for itself of course.
Again, I’m not being negative and saying there is no hope – it’s just a matter of being able to piece together how we got here because within the architecture of formation shall we say of the ‘capital order’, lie the seeds of its own destruction and therein lies hope and the means by which to reverse it.
Life is short but history is long. By coming here today to say something we are leaving our mark on history.
I have seen these claims – they are clearly anti-democratic