Too far left: Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, recognized and lauded the desire of people to work as a group for the good of all. However, he underestimated the individual’s primary drive to work for his/her own good.
Too far right: Adam Smith, in his Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, recognized the productive power of free enterprise. But during the Industrial Age, businesses required such heavy capital investments (land, buildings, large machines) that the individual worker lost too much leverage.
Right down the middle: Conversely, small teams provide a happy medium between the two extremes. They are small enough to make "one for all and all for one" real and believable to the participants. They contain the rewarding social element of camaraderie, which is so necessary for most people to feel their work is fulfilling.
Participants on a small team can see the fruits of their individual efforts. They can see the actual work they've performed. There’s no place to hide on small teams like there is in a bureaucratic division or department of a large company. So one’s personal contribution can be measured. And one can be duly rewarded for exceptional work.
Personally, I believe that humanity is evolving toward a state of enlightenment in which the balance of the primary drive between benefiting others vs. benefiting one's self is shifting. That shift will take generations. And it will be free enterprise that allows the satisfaction of the more basic need levels and allows mankind to move up its hierarchy of needs toward true self-actualization.