I like the Mises guys and the Austrian school of economics, but some of this isn't quite right.

That was socialism in name only, I would be told. And yet, if socialism does mean anything at all today, it imagines that there can be some social improvement resulting from the political movement to take capital out of private hands and put it into the hands of the state.

Yes, but that type of 'socialism' that we see in Scandinavian countries is actually still Capitalism. It's fair to argue that it's coercive, or even undesirable, but it isn't accurate to depict this arrangement as not being capitalism. We are still talking about a market economy rather than central planning, we are still talking about the means of production being privately owned.

Simply having taxation and social services doesn't mean you aren't a capitalist economy. By this definition the USA is already not capitalist (and hence I wouldnt owe everything to it since we are socialist) because we have free public school, social security, and medicare. It's hard to take this piece seriously when he is redefining words on the fly depending on his already defined position