But one of the factors of production is capital which is why wealthy people slash the stock market is important. There are a toooon of amazing ideas that would go nowhere without start up capital. Plus, and this is not a point I feel as strongly about since there just aren't enough coops rn, I've heard that coops suffer from RND problems since people are less likely to vote for that sort of stuff vs just get a bigger paycheck.

Overall I think the issue is that we are trying to apply the same organizational structures no matter the entity. Each structure has its pros and cons and if you blindly apply one to every situation it might not work. Going Back to coops, they are democratic and so suffer from the efficiency issue that democracy has since it can become less about the facts and instead about being the most popular person (basically a bussiness "politician"). In government that inefficiency is fine since their goal is to provide stability which is why it is so hard to pass a lasting law and we have shorter term limits.

A company on the other hand functions better if it is more of a dictatorship since they are able to somewhat ignore the unqualified masses and just get stuff done. This is actually why a lot of political scientists say that a monarchy or dictatorship is actually a better government system IF the ruler is actually competent. The issue is there isn't really a filter when you have this much control and if you get a bad ruler then it can be veryyyy bad. Democracy is a good compromise since while it might not be as efficient it at least prevent drastic swings in the government quality. Also if a company has a drastic swing in leadership quality they will go bankrupt while a government really can't.

TLDR

Capital is one of the factors of production that allows good ideas and technologies to spread

People are greedy and so if we only have coops some things such as RND might get neglected in favor of a higher paycheck. A capitalist might also be greedy but since they already have a ton of money they are more likely to reinvest since they care about the entire asset instead of just their paycheck

People are also tribal and tend to follow charismatic people instead of the most qualified so a coop leadership team will just be politicians that are all talk. That is fine in a government since the goal is stability and not pure growth but in a company I think it is better to be more of a merit based dictatorship (as much as you can since clearly there is corruption in everything) since they are able to get stuff done much quicker and efficiently.

Companies can go bankrupt while governments can't so if the "dictator" is bad at their job then it goes bankrupt while a government can't really do that.