Tldr: skip to the fourth paragraph about Marxism if you do not want to listen to me painstakingly parse through what exactly engineering is.

Most of the insights related to the creation of electronics, or any engineering applications, are generally statistical in nature, rarely deriving purely from mathematics. Some things are mathematically related (acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time) but even then most engineering (not all though) up until the advent of the electronic computer was based in mathematical approximations, compared against rigorous statistical analysis which is then used to create general formulas or find constants that improve those mathematical approximations. However, much of the fine detail engineering, as even engineers will attest, has no real basis in mathematics as the math is far too complex and is purely based off of experience and feel which is then verified by statistical data analytics that tell you if you hit your CTQs (Critical to Quality metrics).

In this way, engineering is quite literally a materialist dialectic, with the empirical metrics needed being the major driving factor of design. And it is more concrete in that it deals with the very literal objects that are being produced, even if it can be more imprecise.

That being said, it can often be at odds with the idealistic dialectic that is finance, as finance dictates that profit and/or growth, which are ultimately abstract measures of 'organizational financial health' (which can be compared to other more social democratic ideas such as 'total societal financial health', where the ball bearing company doesn't necessarily need to be profitable as long as all the other industries that use the ball bearings profits exceed the losses of the ball bearing company, which is why the state subsidizes it) be the fundamental driving force behind product design. These can also work in tandem, depending on if hitting those CTQs is also profitable for the company. You could also argue this is just rhetorical slight-of-hand, with profit and growth being a CTQ in of itself (though I think that is stretching it).

My point is that Marxism is not vulgar materialism, it is about how concepts like the Platonic ideal of a chair become the concrete reality of a chair, and how our experience of that chair then goes on to influence our Platonic ideal of a chair, ad infinitum until our ideal chair looks nothing like the ideal chair of 100 years ago, because it is based primarily in our actual experience of the chair that came before, even though our ideal chair does exist, which is against Hegelian idealist dialectics that says that there is only one platonic ideal chair, and we are constantly seeking to build that one platonic ideal chair, and when we eventually find it no one will build any other kind of chair because everyone who sits in it will instantly know that it is the perfect chair. And if you think I am exaggerating, I am not, Hegel has lengthy passages on aesthetics and how, conveniently, the culture of his time period is the ideal one.

There is a major epistemological difference.