India shared similar population size, geography and wealth to China initially.
India had something closer to a market economy that was less interventionist/communist and for far longer and yet it has grown at a far slower pace.
Austrian predictions from the 90s presumed that China keeping tight control of the economy/currency/inward flows of investment and high level of state ownership was shooting itself in the foot.
However, for me the discussion is also ethical: I do not find a reason to have an ellite forcing on all the others through coaction what to do. Whether it maximizes economy or not. In other words: peopke are ends not means for others. That is the fundamental point in my view.
I would not take a regime with over 60 million deaths (big leap forward, Chinese cultural revolution, etc.) as an example of something ethical by any measure.
The history of a reasonably good country that had successes as the Great Leap Forward, the Chinese Cultural revolution and now the Uyghurs, among many others.
You know, Chinese government is not reasonably good at any level by any moral assessment.
Capitalism has been superior in every aspect: as a proof, migration flows went from socialists to capitalists countries, being East/West Germany just one example.
I would say they did not get here faster because of too much intervention honestly...
Nothing is pure capitalism or socialism. As you open the economy the cash flows more. That is what happened...
BTW, I do not consider China a success since they are like one century late from America and on top of that there is no regike that has killed more than the Chinese. Do you really think it is a success? Well... I would say despite of the people managing it, not because of them...
That said, I am not meaning austrians got everything right, just that I find them relatively convincing in many areas. Of course, they are subjrct to criticism, as everyone else.