Initial impressions on ideological versus materialistic conflict

Considering Zizek's analysis of the end times and conflicting ideology- the fact that after the fall of communism after the end of the Soviet Union capitalism, liberal, and later neo-liberal ideology were left to run rampant and unchallenged, I sat here wondering just where the beast of burden should lie. Traditional Hegelian thought would lead us to believe that all conflict is the conflict of ideology whereas marxist, and post-marxist thought for that matter, would have us believe that all conflict is the result of economic disparage, class struggle, the conflict of powers, from lesser to greater and the oppression thereof. What strikes me as odd here, and this is a fundamentally simple, if not somewhat uninformed, question: is marxism thinking itself with too much simplicity? Hegelian ideological conflict seems to recap the struggle beautifully by widening the expanse of conflict, bringing it into the familiar grounds of philosophy, moving it away from the materialism that dominates, and sometimes blinds, marxist ideology. So why move away from Hegel and towards Marx when Hegel has already paved the way for this ideological ground? Marxism is, and I posit this with all due caution and perhaps a little lack of severity, an inductive consequence of Hegelian thought (not at all far fetched considering Marx was a very well trained student of Hegel) and, what seems to be painfully obvious, most modern views of marxism are twisted and confused in their interpretation of class struggle and it's clearly ideological base of POWER struggles. The nature of conflict is no longer political, this is a post-political world with loose geopolitics now transformed from realpolitik to noopolitik, the virtual war is emblematic of our virtual interaction, the forced depoisoning of society and the psychological trauma we sustain as a direct result of it. There is too much to be discussed concerning this theme, more to come.