You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn’t true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.

No, not force, naturally lead to. It is logical for the oppressed to want to overthrow their oppressor.

We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism.

I'm ignoring both of those things because they are not relevant to the discussion. Only the specifics of the flaw in Marxism we are discussing and domestic policy implications of imperialism are relevant. Your argument is effectively trying to justify the veracity of the Bible with Bible verses. Your argument is self referencing. I addressed the rest of this paragraph in the other comment chain, except the last line.

Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.

Neoliberalism is a political invention. You'll notice the UK adopted it as well, a year earlier than the US. Even though the UK's actual empire had collapsed at that point. Imperialism had nothing to do with it. Conservatives needed a new ideology to combat progressives movements that were taking hold in those countries. So they came up with neoliberalism.

the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism

This is the part I addressed in the other comment chain again, but here you go. Any benefit they experience is quickly extracted from them. The owner class always wins in the end. The boom and bust cycle is the gradual extraction of wealth. With each bust more American families lose the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy. Where as the owner class is always there to benefit from the next boom.

It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.

This is an ad hominem attack in a nut shell. Your argument is directed at me. The veracity of my argument doesn't depend on me.

If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that’s all I ask.

Ad hominem. Again. What I am doing to refute your argument is trivial. Anyone can do this. I highly recommend you try a different approach.

You don’t have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.

I'll take recommendations, but Marxist and anarchist theory in general is not relevant to this discussion.