Not really. In fact, in some cases the situation is the precise reverse of what you suggest.
Your vision of capitalism as a system where inviduals are completely free to pursue their own interests and use their talents as they see fit is a complete and total fantasy. That's not what capitalism is at all, and anyone who has lived in the real world knows that it's not the case that people are free to "use their lives talents and properties as they see fit". That's because people don't have equal access to resources in capitalism and don't have unfettered freedom to do what they like. Let's take a real world example: Donald Trump's starting out in business. His claim that he only got a "small million dollar loan" from his father is a complete fairy tale. He got hundreds of millions of dollars in financial help from his father over the course of his lifetime, including many millions fo dollars before he ever started a business. But let's accept the Donald Trump fairy tale version. He started with a $1 million loan. I couldn't get a $1 million loan, and the fact that he had to get it from his dad tells us that Trump couldn't have gotten one on the merits either. So right away we see that Trump, even by his false version of the story, was helped out immensely by the fact that his father was a multi millionaire who was willing to give his son massive loans which weren't warranted by the traditional lending criteria of banks. That's just one example that shows the disparity in capitalism and how people aren't these totally free and independent entities. Donald Trump, and other rich people, are afforded opportunities which regular people don't. If you're born rich like Trump was then maybe you can use your "lives talents and properties" as you see fit. Other people have to work for a living and make compromises.
Ironically, the world you describe as being capitalist was precisely the type of world that Marx wanted to bring about. He wanted to bring about a world where every individual was completely free to pursue their own interests and use their talents to their fullest. The communist revolution of orthodox Marxism was supposed to result in a world of immense material prosperity and complete individual freedom where one could decide how one wanted to work.
In some cases, Socialist countries do better at enacting the type of world you describe than the capitalist system of the US does. Conservatives like to point to Venezuela as what they, inaccurately, say liberals want America to be. But when you talk to actual people like Bernie Sanders they point a lot more to the Democratic Socialist states of Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries. And one of the realities is that Scandinavia has very high levels of entrepeneurism. It's actually much easier to be an entrepreneur in Scandinavia than in the US where widespread poverty and structural barriers often prevent people from starting businesses. There's many reasons why this is the case. One example is a phenomenon known as "job lock". This is when people stay in a job which they may no longer want because leaving would cause them to lose their employee benefits. In particular health insurance, which is mostly provided by employers in the US, has often been a significant facotr in job lock. By having the state assume the burden of health insurance, thus making sure that all citizens have coverage no matter what, socialist countries actually free up individuals to make the kinds of moves you're talking about where they can easily move between jobs which they might like, or even strike off on their own to try and form their own company. Similarly, the existence of a robust social safety net can lessen the risk of failure which someone can assume by moving to a job which might be more emotionally or spiritually fulfilling but less economically stable. This too can enhance the freedom of individuals to live their lives as they want.
The reality is that socialists want the exact same things you do: they want individuals to be free to do what they want with their lives and labor. They don't want someone else dictating how labor should be allocated. The difference is that socialists also recognize that capitalists corporations can be oppressive to people as well.