Let's go back to the relevant part of your definition:
Morality is the complex interplay between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group, with the group's long-term needs taking precedence over the individual's short term needs.
This says that individual rights exist only so long as the needs of the individual are congruent with those of the group. This is not always the case, and by this definition it may be morally permissible to sacrifice one or many members of the group in support of the long-term group interests. IOW, individuals have no "unalienable rights." The "lifeboat problem" suggests that the needs of the starving many can be served by killing and eating the tastiest-looking one.
Groups are made of individuals and the group must recognize the needs, indeed the "rights" of the individuals within it or it ceases to function (cf., the Soviet Union).
This does not offer any way for us to call the USSR "wrong" other than that it didn't succeed. At any rate, individual rights do not follow from the group's "recognition of needs and rights" does , except perhaps in a conditional sense. For example, the ruling groups of ancient Rome, Egypt, and even the U.S. South survived very nicely, even though they relied for their success on the conquest and/or enslavement of others. (The jury is still out on China.)