I have to admit that I had to do a little more research on Marxist criticism in order to truly understand it. Now that I have, I can see why "Wuthering Heights" would be a excellent subject for this particular type of criticism.
Before reading the passage on Marxist criticism, I thought that "Wuthering Heights" was just another love story and that the revenge saga was just a way to fill up space in the novel. But the more I think about it, the more I am beginning to realize that Emily Bronte was using her novel as a social commentary about the disparages between the rich and the poor and the lack of rights given to women. Heathcliff served as a catalyst for both.
In the beginning, Heathcliff is brought to "Wuthering Heights" by the kindhearted Earnshaw. He was starved and unkempt and it was obvious that he was not in the same social class as the Earnshaws. As indicated in our class discussion, even though he was fed and clothed and allowed to live with the Earnshaws, he was still an outsider to the original family. And when the father died, Hindley immediately removed Heathcliff from his position as "family member" to servant. This was also reinforced by Edgar Linton as well. As soon as he saw Heathcliff, he knew that he was not in the same class as he and immediately despised him. And the constant reference to the term "gypsy" made me think of another term that's used to remind someone of their class - "nigger".
Bronte also used Heathcliff as a way to comment on the role of women in her society. Heathcliff's revenge on Hindley and Edgar rested solely on the fact that women were not allowed to own property and whatever they acquired through death immediately went to their male counterparts, whether it be brother or husband. If it wasn't for this norm in their society, Heathcliff's plan would have never come into fruition.