A better question rather than bringing up the exhausted "strawman" pejorative, is do you concur with him?
His strawman argument was the crux of his entire post, so there is no better response than calling that out. He didn't add any additional insight into the issue other than calling the article BS so there wasn't much else to build on. If he had actually given potentially valid points to discuss, as you just have, there could have been room for more discussion.
As in I find that it streche scredulity to a breaking point when he asserts how the Communist revolutions in Russia created equality for it's citizens. Could you make a good argument for the income leveling of the Great leap forward in China, which directly caused between 18 million and 55 million deaths by starvation? The dead were equal in a morbid manner, but I don't think Mao missed too many meals.
That is a very valid criticism of the article, since I agree his attempt to include these two Communist revolutions as examples of decreasing inequality damages his central argument. The only real problem I have with his statements is his claim that these revolutions "[leveled] inequality on an unprecedented scale". This is hard to believe when China's level of income inequality is nearly the same as the US, with China's income inequality being a little worse but wealth inequality being a little better. Both Communist revolutions probably did lower inequality for at least a short period, but it would require significant backup arguments and statistics to convince me it was unprecedented.
But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.
This may be true, but in this case it is hard to disagree with the central argument that income inequality is very hard to fight without significant and drastic upheavals in society, such as revolution and war. While not true in all cases, "it takes money to make money" is still quite accurate in almost all cases. Compound Interest is the eighth wonder of the world and it overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy. Without drastic increases in wealth distribution this inequality will only accelerate in the future.