You're not so bad yourself. Except, of course, when you start to sharpen you knives.
The undercurrent behind socialism is that of a commitment to society, and is not nearly as related to "materialism" as Marx would have one believe. The impulses involved in the rhetoric of, say, a Kropotkin are those of any truly commited Christian. More generally, thaey are the convictions of one that has been highly 'socialized', and has made a considerable commitment to the society at large as opposed to the more narrow 'personal'. Rand justified such actions in regards to a personal commitment to the society, as an 'ideal of value'; her claim was that serving the needs of society was not a duty, but a choice, to be arrived at only via rational thought - not the coersive power of an all-knowing, all-powerful Party. Her contention in this regard I find perfectly reasonable and, given what I presume to be the attitude of socialists, the undermining concept behind her ideas that so fills them with rancor.
Simply, for a socialist utopia to exist, it must have capitalists to pay for it. If such an eventuality is your goal, you "ought" to make such a society worth the investment of said capitalist patrons. The U.S. has been fairly successful in this goal, and thus, is a wealthy and prosperous country - even for the "poor".
We have met the revolution, and he is ... us.