Sometimes a catchy title is just a catchy title. Perhaps you've been so damaged by the misuse of this - actual dreadful, extended, fatuous analogies between one thing and something rather unrelated/inflammatory that you recoil at the mere sight. This is understandable but in this case, the author doesn't actually make any serious analogy with communism - just a passing reference to 'ideas that sounded good but didn't work out in practice' to get his critique of dynamic linking going. It's a harmless (albeit worn-out) device - it's you who might be red-bloodedly over-reacting.
If I am forced to take the mental effort to disentangle the actual argument from the irrelevant analogy, I'm probably going to save the effort and skip all of it.
This kind of 'disentangling' can certainly be grating and tiresome but there isn't any to do here. One mention in the title. One mention in one of the lead-in sentences. That's it. It's just a (mercifully very brief) attempt to be catchy. It may be lame but there really is no analogy to disentangle here. The rest of the verbiage consists of specific technical points. If you find that sort of thing so onerous ('forced to' sounds like the author personally sent you to the Gulag) you likely experience great difficulty and mental fatigue reading most blogs since they tend to be stylistically lax.
