I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a collectivist, but I am sympathetic to this statement.
Some people (Group 1) get ahead primarily by promoting themselves, manipulating others, ingratiating themselves to higher-ups and positioning themselves in ways to further their careers. In other words, their talents and methods lie more in their ability to manipulate the system than in the quality of their work, their actual contributions or a compelling desire to improve anything.
Others (Group 2) are more concerned with exploring ideas, building new things, making a better world or improving what came before them. These are the people who have talent, who live in a world of ideas and whose motivations are not necessarily driven by greed or advancement at the expense of others.
Members of Group 1 take more from society more than they give back. Members of Group 2 typically contributes more than they receive.
This observation isn’t an argument against capitalism. For that matter, it’s an argument for capitalism.
Members of Group 2 are often entrepreneurs who have dreams and ideas. They’re the builders and implementers of new ideas. They might not do these things with the motive of bettering society, but the things they create often end up doing exactly that.
Group 1 members are largely parasitic. They’re more concerned with status, power over others, and self-glorification than they are with creating new things or improving existing systems. Rather than bettering the world by contributing new ideas, talents and building new things, they tend to land in more bureaucratic organizations that are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than they are about innovation. It’s here where these societal parasites can manipulate the rules and play the system to their advantage.