Yes, this is how I understand the Capitalist framework of understanding.
You also explain well how I understand the understanding of Socialists within the Capitalist framework of understanding. But am I to also understand that you regard alternative frameworks of understanding as without merit, correctness and thus relevance whatsoever?
I went to a couple of local Socialist party meetings in my country, and believe me it was nothing but confirmation bias. Are you suggesting that this would not be the same at any other point in the spectrum?
Poetic and continental as this may be, I am familiar with Nietzsche and your value ontology enough to grasp the gist of what you are talking about. However, as someone with Socialist sympathies, am I to suppose that I garner no credence in your eyes as a philosopher by this fact alone? Am I to also understand from you that as a lover of wisdom, there is in your reckoning only a particular path to maximising said wisdom in line with Capitalism and not at all through Socialism? No assumptions this far, just questions.
Is that right? Have you explored Socialist sympathies in yourself such that this is the only rationale that could possibly explain them? If you have I am tempted to now assume that you did so in bad faith, else you would know that sociable happiness is optimised by the happiness of not only oneself but others also such as family, friends and even beyond. By contrast, yes, the unhappiness of fellow man does diminish the happiness of oneself, yet the latter is not the primary reason as you suggest but merely a consequence of the former. The Socialist does not fail to see persons, quite the contrary: they see persons if anything too clearly - hence the empathy. This is only conceptually simplified as a group, when in fact it is an overflow.
Will you now disregard what I have said to return to what you have initially been presenting as where have set your heart - prior even to any discussion?