>>671697I see. Maybe you could say the dialectical relationship between the productive or concrete base, and the ideological superstructure instead?
So you're saying that the relationship between the daily activities of people and the social ideology within which they operate is an objectively observable phenomenon. Particularly how the concrete activities of people influences the social ideology and how this ideology in turn influences the daily activities of people.
If you want to use some Althusserian language (i think?) then you can say that they are overdetermined. Hegelian dialectics usually deal with internal differences that determine each other, and in doing so develop each other. In Marxist dialectics it's a bit more complicated I'd say. Calling it a process is a bit weird because it kind of implies that the things in question are doing dialectics, rather than someone pointing out how the differences in the two things being observed define one another and have tension or opposition between each other, and thus are "dialectically in opposition" or some shit like this idk.
Further, it sounds like your understanding of the material vs the ideal is misunderstanding concepts in dialectical materialism. The material or material reality is usually used to refer to concrete activities. Although, material reality, technically encompasses everything. The ideal is more of a platonic concept in the context you're using it. In Marxism, ideas are part of the concrete reality. There is nothing that isn't material reality. By setting up a contradiction between the universe as it exists and the ideal, you easily fall into a trap where you are contrasting something that is not part of material reality. So perhaps being a bit more precise with which components of material reality you are comparing is a better move.