What they fail to appreciate is just how much cooperation it requires as well.
Like... the difference between capitalism and the kind of paternalistic progressivism they prefer, is consent. Capitalism asks... Is this interaction voluntary? The alternative asks... Is this interaction what's best for the collective, as determined by technocratic, bureaucratic experts who know what's best for us? It relies not on cooperation arrived at by choice, but control... And that's the fundamental difference.
Competition gives us signals on what works best, signals progressives do their best to ignore while pretending to be scientific. And one of the things the signals say, time and again, is that cooperation is more efficient than solitude. This is why nobody can, alone, make a pencil.
I'm not some Ayn Rand extremist on capitalism or anything, but if the past few years has taught us anything, it's that we should have less trust in experts, and more trust in people. That we need one another more than we need them. Specialisation of knowledge and niche expertise is efficient, but institutional knowledge has limits and shouldn't fear constant, necessary challenge.
Authorities that fear ideological competition are authorities that deserve the least amount of trust. Individuals ain't perfect by any means, but stumbling through and experimenting is necessary for growth. People pursuing individual ends, choosing often to work in concert with one another for mutual or complimentary ones, deserve more credit as a collective than the conformists following dictates like disciples would ever allow.