In capitalism, we have to spend the majority of our lives sacrificing our chance at holistic wellness and fulfillment to produce for those who exploit us, we have to take commands and accept austerity, we have to constantly ignore our own needs to respect the fiction known as private property. These are elements of a coercive altruism, which an anti-authoritarian individualism could help remedy. For what it's worth, one of the core tenets of socialism across different flavors is the notion that workers should retain the full product of their labor, quite an individualist notion actually.
There are certainly hierarchical or anti-social individualist elements of capitalism as well, no doubt about that, I just want to add some complexity to this. The more I've thought about the selfishness/selflessness dichotomy, the more I find it bullshit. Every social system has elements of both, and they can be done in authoritarian or anti-authoritarian ways.
Even if capitalism/hierarchy/bigotry depends on individualism, that's largely irrelevant to the types of individualism that are most relevant to anarchism, such as egoist communism, so the point is kind of moot.
Individualism can encompass hedonism or respecting individual value for each person; one can be motivated by self-interest at others' expense, or toward others' gain, or something else entirely. There are even pro-social and anti-social individualisms, and desirable or undesirable societies to be pro- or anti- to. One person's anti-social individualism (Novatore) contrasts from another's (e.g. a meth addict) in important ways as well. The "individualism" of the US Libertarian Party and pro-capitalists is distinct from the "individualism" of Max Stirner or Benjamin Tucker.
So in short, chalking all of these forms of oppression up to simple "individualism" is reductionist and basically pointless, even if you don't identify in any way as an "individualist".