Hard to say how much. Certainly for a long period of history China was the most developed country in the world by various indexes of development (for one example see Morris' Why the West Still Rules for discussion of a few measures). Were it indeed regression to a mean stable condition, it would not exactly disprove the notion of their being very resilient.

It's true that some of the scale of its achievement could simply be a reflection of a similar achievement magnified by its population. It's also likely true that part of its achievement is to accomplish a unification of such a large population in the first place.

It may have been highly developed for much of world history, but its mean condition was not highly stable. Last century's convulsion was but one of many the Chinese people have put themselves through. You could conclude they are among the most warlike of any people, at least where domestic conflict is concerned. One can argue that is simply a reflection of a strong desire to unify a collective identity. However, their capability to both create and survive war and suffering is itself remarkable.

I think that weighs in favor of them having a high resilience. As Rocky Balboa says, "It's not about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward." China has certainly taken plenty of hits, and kept moving forward. Many other places have "never recovered" from the hits they've taken.

I would not say that this means China's ascent is assured by any means. But they do seem to have remarkable resilience and capability.

But I don't know. Maybe they do not have that. I won't say here what's in their future, all I'm saying here what one could conclude seems likely, given a sober look at their present and past.

I honestly feel that all the discussion of China is off track for this question. I must bear some responsibility for that, tho, as I think I've talked a lot about it here. I'd prefer not to, one reason is because I think this question is about far more than just China.