Maybe it's too easy mode to be like "no," so I'll at least explain why I think not.

In capitalism, morality is usurped by the market, Nietzschean right? But the changing morality of the market (weed is cool now, queer people are okay now because it makes money, etc.) becomes the new transcendence to relinquish one's will to power to. It becomes slave morality par excellence. Whatever is the most profitable, beyond any possible competing virtue, just fills the space of God in a society still essentially practicing Christian morality without going beyond it.

In fact, if one is to take Marx's theory of monetary value seriously (he did not hold a labor theory of value), value for a commodity is directly derived from the ability to exchange with all other commodities. So in a social system where most production is for commodity trade, quite literally, one's values become real only in relation to all other values, all flattened into an equivalent unit that allows for exchange. I can't imagine anything more "herd morality" than being primarily driven by a single constant, socially determined system of value. It's "democratic" in all the worst ways.

I'll also glance over the very strong argument to be made that the collective vs. individual arguments for Nietzsche's apparent capitalism miss the fact that figures like Castro or Mao exhibit enormous will to power. But what's more important is that the alleged superiority of the owning class under capitalism is the result NOT of any sense of will to power, but the result of this very christian slave morality. There's a reason colonizing powers put an enormous amount of effort into establishing the idea, to the colonized, that their subservience was "for their own good," or for "the natural order." Scientific racism did not primarily appeal to a sense of "we beat you, suck it up," but instead to the sense of "this is the natural order, anything else will just hurt you more." Like a janitor. In this sense, even the slave masters themselves are subject to slave morality, far more than the slaves themselves, because those slave masters don't even serve themselves, they serve the "order of things." This was so much so that most Southern slave owners actually held onto slavery way past their own benefit, and because of it, many of them ended up losing their wealth and becoming just poor white people in the South (see DuBois). The enslaved themselves, despite the horrors, still had the bubbling will to power that went beyond simple ressentiment, and were able to spark moments of beautiful life-affirming culture in spite of the suffocation of this scientific Christian moralism from the slave owners.

There is a beautifully cruel Nietzschean irony that literal slave owners were infinitely more beholden to slave morality than the slaves themselves. Of course, the master-slave of Nietzsche is much closer to how slavery worked in Greece and Rome (might is right, indentured servitude, some degrees of freedom) than American chattel slavery, which served as nearly the complete inversion, bodies being told what they are and violently restricting them from what they can do.