In terms of economic systems--yes.
But the article asserts that the great Depression of the '30s (and by analogy all depressions) would have been shorter if the government had simply stayed out of it. That's completely unproven. It's just as likely that there would have been civil war and revolution.
Actually it's completely proven. The Great Depression had the most government intervention in history and it was the longest. It was caused by government intervention--the Hawley Smoot trade bill killed world trade.
Study the business cycles of the 19th century in the US. There was a crash (that's what they were called before the euphemism "depression" was invented) every seven years or so. They were all over in a year or so. The 19th century averaged more growth than the 20th, despite the crashes. So the Great Depression would have lasted merely a year without the Hawley Smoot act and other monkey business from the Feds.
It's just as likely that there would have been civil war and revolution.
I assume you mean in the US. Describe this scenario you imagine was just as likely. I can't see it. We didn't have a civil war over depressions in the 19th century. Why would we in the 20th?
Even in the 1830's De Tocqueville worried about the fate of our system when the frontier closed. Labor unrest increased steadily from the 1870's. In the early 1900s Roosevelt was worried enough to establish national parks and bust trusts. Morgan barely staved off a 1930's Great Depression in '07. In 1913 the Federal Reserve was established to try to bring some stability to a system perceived as increasingly out of control. The Great War brought an end to the 19th century and the ancien regimes. Meanwhile Marxism in its varied forms was popularly perceived as an irrestible antidote (or evolutionary successor) to capitalist greed.
Hoover intervened because he felt he had to - in spite of his ideological preferences.