Through a Marxist Lens: Wealth , labor, and the illusion of mobility

In Chief Daddy (2018), a Nigerian comedy-drama directed by Niyi Akinmolayan, the sudden death of a wealthy patriarch—Chief Beecroft—leaves a web of family members, mistresses, and hangers-on vying for a slice of his estate. On the surface, the film offers comedic relief and family drama, but beneath the glitz lies a rich site for ideological critique. Through the lens of Marxist theory, Chief Daddy can be read as a representation—and perhaps a soft endorsement—of elite privilege and class hierarchy. The film’s portrayal of wealth, labor, and inheritance reflects deeply entrenched capitalist values. While it gestures toward themes of class mobility and inequality, these issues are largely flattened or glossed over in favor of maintaining the spectacle of wealth and the aspirational fantasy it projects.

Wealth and Ownership: Who Controls the Means of Production?

At the heart of Marxist critique is the question of who owns the means of production, and in Chief Daddy, that question is both central and elusive. Chief Beecroft, though largely absent from the narrative due to his death, looms large as the embodiment of bourgeois capital. He is portrayed as a generous benefactor, someone who “took care” of his many dependents—legitimate or otherwise. Yet, we learn very little about how he amassed his wealth. The details are vague, likely intentionally so. There are hints of oil money, a staple of Nigerian elite identity, but the film avoids any real interrogation of how this wealth was created or whose labor sustained it.

This ambiguity is significant. By omitting the mechanisms of wealth accumulation, the film allows Chief Beecroft’s riches to appear organic or magical—something he simply “had” rather than something extracted from labor or the exploitation of class relations. This fits squarely within what Marx described as commodity fetishism, where the social relationships that produce wealth are hidden behind the shiny object of wealth itself. Viewers are meant to marvel at Chief Daddy’s largesse without questioning its origins.

Inheritance and the Myth of Meritocracy

In Chief Daddy, inheritance becomes the primary mechanism for resource distribution, underscoring the class divide between those born into wealth and those outside it. Chief Beecroft’s death triggers a chaotic scramble for access to his estate, and in this drama, we see a caricature of bourgeois inheritance politics. Characters do not work for wealth—they await its bestowal. This not only perpetuates a feudal-like model of wealth transfer but also reflects capitalism’s deeply flawed myth of meritocracy.

Within a Marxist framework, inheritance is problematic because it decouples wealth from labor. It reproduces class status across generations, allowing a privileged few to maintain dominance over resources without contributing to their production. In Chief Daddy, this is especially evident in how the biological children and various side families behave: they expect, demand, and manipulate, all in the pursuit of unearned wealth. The narrative does not challenge this expectation. Instead, it uses it as the primary engine of comedy and drama, inadvertently naturalizing elite entitlement.

There is one exception—the lawyer handling Chief Daddy’s will. She temporarily wields power, representing a technocratic class whose influence is tied to their institutional roles rather than inheritance. However, her role is ultimately to reinforce the status quo, ensuring the property returns to the rightful bourgeois heirs.

Labor and the Invisible Working Class

If the Beecrofts and their extended networks represent the elite class, then who represents the working class in Chief Daddy? The answer is both literal and metaphorical invisibility. Domestic staff—drivers, cooks, maids—populate the background of the film, offering occasional moments of humor or insight, but they are rarely centered. They serve, in every sense of the word.

The camera does not linger on their lives, their struggles, or their aspirations. They exist primarily as narrative devices to showcase the generosity or cruelty of their employers.

This marginalization reflects the broader erasure of labor in capitalist ideology. Marx emphasized that under capitalism, labor is alienated—workers are estranged from the products of their labor and from the process of labor itself. In Chief Daddy, not only are workers alienated, they are virtually non-existent as subjects. Their experiences are irrelevant to the central drama of inheritance and privilege.

The irony is sharp: while the elite characters fight over wealth they did not earn, the people who maintain the estates, cook the meals, and drive the luxury cars are left in the margins of the story, both visually and ideologically. The result is a narrative that, whether intentionally or not, glorifies elite privilege while rendering labor invisible.

Commodification and Class Display

One of the most striking elements of Chief Daddy is its aestheticization of wealth. From lavish interiors to designer fashion and ostentatious parties, the film revels in material culture. In Marxist terms, this is the commodification of lifestyle. Wealth is not just about access to resources—it becomes a performance, a way to signify status and power. Every scene seems choreographed to emphasize what Thorstein Veblen called “conspicuous consumption”—using goods not for their utility, but for their ability to display one’s place in the social hierarchy.

In this way, the film participates in a broader capitalist fantasy: wealth is fun, beautiful, desirable, and above all, aspirational. The viewer is not invited to critique the system but to envy those at the top. Even when the characters behave badly or irrationally, their wealth insulates them from meaningful consequences. This reproduces what Marxists would critique as ideological control—the normalization of inequality through media that distracts or pacifies the viewer with glamor and humor.

Class Mobility and the Illusion of Escape

A key tension in Marxist thought is the question of class mobility: can individuals move between classes under capitalism, or is the system rigged to maintain inequality? Chief Daddy flirts with the idea of upward mobility, especially through characters who are not Beecroft’s immediate family but have been “helped” by him—illegitimate children, extended family, or protégés. These characters hope that through inheritance, they can ascend the social ladder.

However, this is an illusion. Their mobility is entirely dependent on elite benevolence, not structural change. This reinforces the problematic notion that progress comes from aligning oneself with the powerful rather than challenging the structures of power themselves. It suggests that the only path to wealth is through proximity to it—not through work, innovation, or collective struggle.

By failing to depict any character who rises through labor or systemic transformation, the film forecloses the possibility of meaningful class mobility. It offers a fantasy of mobility within an immovable structure. In Marxist terms, this functions as false consciousness—a way of keeping subordinate classes hopeful enough not to revolt.

Economic Inequality: Glossed Over for Humor

Despite centering around a rich family, Chief Daddy does not engage seriously with economic inequality. Poverty exists, implicitly, but it is never shown with gravity or empathy. Instead, the film relies on class stereotypes for comic effect—over-the-top characters who use exaggerated accents or clothes to signal their lower status, or scenes in which less wealthy characters try to “act rich” and fail humorously.

This comedic framing neutralizes the critique. Rather than exposing inequality as unjust or unsustainable, it is presented as part of the natural social order. There is no systemic critique, no suggestion that things should be different—only the hope that everyone might, one day, get their share.

The film thus reinforces capitalist ideology by making inequality appear harmless and even entertaining.

Conclusion: A Comedy that Reaffirms Class Power

Viewed through a Marxist lens, Chief Daddy is less a critique of capitalism than a performance of its fantasies. It constructs wealth as something to be desired, labor as something to be ignored, and inheritance as the primary mode of economic power. The commodification of culture, the erasure of working-class voices, and the illusion of mobility all serve to uphold a capitalist logic in which the elite deserve their wealth and the rest must either serve them or hope to become them.

While the film may succeed as a piece of entertainment, its ideological implications are clear. Chief Daddy does not challenge elite privilege—it affirms it, glamorizes it, and wraps it in humor to make it more palatable. In doing so, it offers no real critique of economic inequality, but rather a comforting myth: that with the right connections and enough luck, anyone can join the ruling class. For Marxists, this is precisely the kind of cultural product that maintains the dominance of the bourgeoisie—not through force, but through fantasy.