Fundamentally, China's economic growth is no different than that which occurred in Britain, later on the continent and US.  The industrial revolution's economic success was solely due to the ability to supply industrial labor by the rapid shift from subsistance farming labor to industrial employment in factories and their suppliers.  The inventions that enabled industrial scale production would have foundered completely had there been no ready supply of labor for these methods.  England passed several laws to force the peasants famers off the land and into suburban centers to supply the factory's.  The same occurred on the continent in due course.  The US's own industrial growth surge was enabled by both huge immigration of labor from Europe and shifting the agricultural economy to an industrial one (demographics shift from farming to urbanization)..... the essence of the US's civil war was the south's capital owners (agricultural land owning class) reluctance (& economic disincentives with slavery) to find / seek a means to shift from agriculture to an industrial economy to compete with the north.

The only real difference is that China induced foreign capital to industrialize it by having a huge underemployed class (low labor costs) available to supply the factories and enabled profits to be taken (but only partially) by the private capital invested, whereas the already existing capital owning class in Europe and the US supplied the capital to itself.   

 The future problems of China will relate to it's ability or inability to adequately fund imports of food-stuffs since it's arable land, even with the most advanced agricultural methods, cannot support it's population.  My guess is that rather than capital profits (state owned or private) primarily going to the capital class as profits,  a very large share will actually be used for importing food (and energy) to maintain its economic growth at a globally competitive level while fending off revolution (revolt by the poor).  In the US the agricultural loss of labor didn't result in loss of food-stuffs, rather modern farming methods increased yields with less labor by use of industrial equipment but arable land wasn't in and still isn't in critical supply... i.e. we had and still have more arable land than is required for supplying the US's population with cheap and abundant supplies of agricultural produce.... provided we continue to enable the use of low cost labor supplies from Mexico and central america.