Oh, puh-LEAZE...
That's one of the sloppiest, silliest, longest-reaching bits of nonsense I've read in a long time.
Short form: The author, a socialist/Marxist, tries hard to claim Gould as "one of their own" in order to add some shred of respectability to their ranks, through the goofy tactic of a) admitting that "Gould did not openly identify himself as a Marxist nor did he claim to use dialectical reasoning" (because he *wasn't*), b) in the author's view some of Gould's arguments could be called "dialectic" in form (whoop-de-doo, it's an empty buzzword in this context), and c) Gould rejects attempts to stratify society as if certain classes, races, or genders were predestined to be above the others, and (gasp) so did Marx. Well so do most decent people of any philosophy, duh.
Swallowing this idiot author's "conclusion" about Gould (i.e. that he was therefore a flag-waving closet Marxist) is the height of gullibility. And since when have we believed Marxists?
On a side note, he completely misrepresents punctuate equilibrium as well.