Subversive Dominance: Marx and Kirk

 

   

        Marx wrote that “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas,” and the Marxist perspective aims to ‘expose’ this dominant ideology via examination of cultural texts for proximity to the ‘status-quo’ power structure.  Blatantly, it is an anti-capitalist lens that labels a dual class relationship of oppressed and oppressor, with the self-proclaimed mission of emancipation of the former.  Through this lens, cultural production is akin to capitalist propaganda: pervasively hegemonic in the reinforcement of materialism.  Every cultural text is therefore a ‘site of struggle,’ wherein dominance is exerted and emancipation is needed.  Neo-Marxist analysis of these texts proclaim empowerment via criticality in ‘transforming and maintaining the democratic ideals we espouse.’ This lens assumes that democracy is impeded by capitalism due to the ‘commodity fetishism’ that promotes the denigration of people in favor of exchange-relations of things, thereby enforcing systemic oppression. 

    In America, Neo-Marxism has been taught as a critical ideology for decades as a relevant and meaningful academic pursuit, regardless of the clear irony that Marx’s anti-capitalist, pro-communist ideology stands in direct opposition to the American capitalist democratic republic.  ‘Protecting democratic ideals’ is an awkward motive in this sense, functioning more as a statement of relevance rather than proof of a noble pursuit.  Since Neo-Marxism is validated through academia and pervasive in the current cultural sphere, it can prove its relevance through analysis of the most trending topic of last year; what battle of ideologies or hegemonic materialism can be exposed in the reading of the public assassination of Charlie Kirk as a site of struggle?

    As new media continues the shift away from monolithic, mass cultural production towards more niche and fractionated production and participation, current events stand even more prominently as cultural texts for examination.  According to Grok AI, based on Google’s Year in Search data that measures the biggest spikes in search interest, Charlie Kirk was the most trending topic of 2025.  This event produced a ‘sheer spike in global curiosity and discussion’, ‘dominating’ news cycles and spiking major network news viewership up to %72, making this tragedy a prominent and defining cultural text.  If materialism is hegemonic in a capitalist society, surely a Neo-Marxist analysis will be relevant to this assassination; or will it?

    Neo-Marxism labels ideology as a false set of ideas perpetuated by dominant political forces, especially regarding materialism and consumerism, that are accepted by the subordinate/ disempowered/ oppressed.  This false ideology becomes ‘common sense’ as events, texts, and practices promote power interests of the privileged ideology over others, promoting the participation of the oppressed in their own oppression.  Charlie Kirk was an American Caucasian, heterosexual male with a family, presumably Republican and materially successful, with proximity to political power; he was the epitome of what the Neo-Marxist lens would label as the dominant, oppressor class.  

    A further reading of him as a public figure might lead to the conclusion that the false, privileged ideology he promoted was the American ‘myth’ of free speech.  His expression of speech and his campus events could be reduced to a practice of privilege, an interpellation of an American ‘model’ that promoted the ‘valor’ of freedom of expression, but perhaps only because of his class and identity.  In this reading of him as a public figure, Kirk could be reduced to a preferred reading of class identity: we can speak freely if we identify with the dominant power class.  

    Or perhaps we could read into his use of public debate as occluded and preferred, wherein debate itself is used to invite opposition to a dominant, hegemonic ideology promoted via Kirk’s identity that ultimately reinforces the dominant power structure because he couched the notion of debate within his own brand and image.  This provides the materialistic underpinnings of his work and provides ‘proof’ of the hegemony he promoted.

    For those who opposed his ‘identity of privilege,’ Kirk’s public assassination was an act of ‘empowerment’ of the ‘oppressed,’ or at least an act of disempowerment of the oppressor.  Many celebrated his murder as such, as seen in the social media response following the event.  Perhaps they saw his murder in a subverted oppositional reading context, wherein a message of direct opposition of the status quo was delivered and thus worthy of celebration. 

    However, for those who interpellated him as a ‘model’ of dominant culture (wherein they allegedly participated in their own oppression through their identification with him), did they find their empowerment through his murder?  Were they emancipated from a false ideology?  Or, perhaps they were confronted with a surprising alignment with the claims from a Neo-Marxist lens: that freedom of speech in America is perhaps, in actuality, a myth? As well, did the Neo-Marxist assumptions of American hegemony get confronted with the discovery that Charlie Kirk’s identity demographic is perhaps, in actuality, not the dominant power?