There's one attribute of capitalism that I think is largely responsible for its success, and is likely the single largest factor that contributed to the USA's victory over the USSR:

Capitalism allows permission-free innovation.

In my opinion, markets get too much credit and are actually secondary to this. A market is just a way of performing goal-directed gradient descent and aggregating decision making. Markets are not by any means "efficient," and are highly vulnerable to getting stuck at local maxima like any other gradient descent algorithm.

I think the ability to engage in permission free innovation is actually a much more significant advantage than markets. You could nix the market and implement some kind of socialism and I think you'd still have a fast, innovative economy if you allowed people to negate the bureaucracy. I'm not saying markets don't have advantages, just that they're not a panacea.

I saw this when I worked as a government contractor. There was an incident within the org where I worked that had the effect of temporarily suspending the bureaucracy, and for that brief period of time it innovated like a small agile private company! Everything felt like it went vertical. Then the bureaucracy came back and all innovation halted. Now you had to ask permission, so nothing could happen.

Thing is: as the size of a corporation approaches "big," its internal procedures and politics start to resemble government. Microsoft, IBM, and yes even the venerable Google start to look a lot like government agencies internally. As they grow they take on a lot of government's problems, like sclerotic bureaucracy.

The meta-corp model avoids this by allowing individual "departments" to function with an extreme level of independence. It uses mechanisms like equity finance to capture upside while creating enough autonomy to allow permission-free innovation.