Rod:
I think sparked pretty much covered everything
Though I would add, there's a distinction to be made between theoretical Marxism and a Marxist society in practice. The general consensus is that true Marxist communism has never been achieved, and that the socialist states that exist now/ have existed in the past are involve deviations from the original philosophy.
But if you're looking at Marxist readings of texts, then knowing the theory should help immensely. Often Marxist readings focus on the 'bourgeoisie' and the 'proletariat' ie. the capitalist class who control the wealth/means of production vs. the working class, with a favoured view of the latter, obviously. So a lot of period literature eg. Austen, Dickens etc. can be read through a Marxist lens in that its message is one of social equality and equal distribution; even if this is not what the author intended, there can still be ideological undertones or allusions.
vintagea:
hmm.. if this is from Horace's
Satire like I think it is, then you might have a slight mistranslation (or an alternate one?)
I was once a fig-tree’s trunk, a lump of useless wood,
Till the carpenter, uncertain whether to carve Priapus
Or a stool, decided on the god.It's mainly the carpenter bit that's different in the original. Nonetheless, ignoring the historical context, the poem seems to be exploring the limits of creation and potential. The speaker employs prosopopoeia in speaking through the voice of a tree trunk/wood, describing his own transformation, and how his form is at the mercy and whim of his 'creator.' The carpenter could carve the wood into Priapus, one of the Greek fertility gods, or a stool; in a way this is like a spectrum of importance: a god that is worshiped and revered, or a stool that is sat on, stepped on and generally ignored. From memory the passage goes on to become the voice of Priapus, since the carpenter has given him the form of a god, it is only natural for the speaker to adopt a new voice. It then goes on to explore the limits of this new creation (not sure how much context you have/need) but I think the poem's central message is one of creative potential and malleability.