TLDR: Ask Salvador Allende. Oh, wait, you can't. You could ask Miguel Diaz-Canel instead, but he'll probably tell you that it doesn't work that way.

The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie isn't homogeneous. No political system is. There's factions, there's push and pull, there are adaptations to reality, and there are failures to do so. And like any other political system, it'll only rally and act in lockstep if there's a threat to the whole. A threat to every faction at once, usually through a threat to the whole system itself. In the case of the DotB, socialism/communism/worker rule is that threat.

In a nutshell. The reason that reformism doesn't work is because, no matter what flavor of DotB you have, the entire purpose of the system is to keep wealth flowing to the top. Parliamentarism, presidentialism, junta, monarchy, electoral technocracy, what have you, doesn't matter. Capitalist government exists for the purpose of keeping the relations of capital. Trying to use a tool of capitalism enforcement and maintenance, refined to the nth degree by capitalism, is trying to sail a lighthouse, or to teach a dog to sing. It literally can't do the thing you want it to do. Attempting to twist it into a tool of the DotP would break it - I say would because, before you can even break it, it will slice your hand open.

When we say capitalism is entrenched, the DotB is both the biggest shovel and the best trench. The entire incentive system in modern governance makes it so that most people working in it have a vested interest in it doing what it's doing. Both by (more commonly in the past) bribing the technical operators of bureaucracy, and by (always) placing beneficiaries of the system in decision making positions. Trying to get a DotB to cooperate with a socialist project leads to every level of governance has its interests threatened. And that's on top of the bourgeoisie itself being threatened. And so the system will fight for its own survival, both at the systemic level (unjust laws, lawfare, opposition mechanics) and at the individual level (people simply not doing what the DotP project would want them to do).

Infiltration from the government from the top doesn't work because individuals within the system have every incentive to keep the apparatus as is. Infiltration from the bottom (mostly) doesn't work because the state apparatus prunes itself of elements that don't fit the incentive system, or neutralizes those elements when it can't prune them.

When it comes to DotB government infiltration, it either happens at almost every level at the same time, or it doesn't work. History teaches us that toppling the government as a structure (aka revolution) is easier, and has a better success rate, than trying to win multiple elections at several levels plus replacing bureaucrats plus coopting enforcers and military branches all at the same time. Naturally, this is an oversimplification - doing any of those things is good. I'm open to examples to the contrary, but the point is, doing those things only leads to actual long term success if the leverage gained is used to topple the government. If socialists just sit on one or two victories inside the apparatus, or try to leverage those into more power within the apparatus, they get pushed out or neutered sooner or later, and the position is lost.

Any and all corrections by comrades are welcome. I'm not that well read.

The short answer is yes. The long answer is this has been written about at length in regards to China.

• Is China State Capitalist?
• Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

The Chinese bourgeoisie have almost no political power, and that makes all the difference. People like Jack Ma are kept on a short leash. They own very roughly half of all production right now, but the state owns the rest, many of them being key industries.

the anti-China ones always say there can't be socialist advancement while the bourgeoisie exist, or while there are market relations

This is un-dialectical thinking. It is effectively the same as saying that there can't be progress while contradictions still exist. But progress is achieved precisely through the confronting and resolving of contradictions. Marxism-Leninism has always maintained that class struggle does not end overnight when the working class takes power.

Intense class struggle continues all throughout the process of building socialism. For a socialist state to pretend as if class struggle has ended is to fall into the same trap the USSR did, as the vanguard party is lulled into a false sense of security and begins to make existentially dangerous mistakes. For what is the alternative to reform if not stagnation?

Communism can only exist globally in a world without scarcity. So while I wholeheartedly accept socialism in one country, I think we have to acknowledge that China isn’t going to reach communism alone.

I do however think that Marxism is nothing if not constantly adapting or “reforming” to changing material conditions. So if the dictatorship of the proletariat remains, I think this is the only path towards developing socialism

Is the betterment of the working class and a push to communist relations to the means of production possible through gradual means when the working class is in charge of the State and the economy?

If what you mean is that a bourgeois state can be reformed into a DotP, its tough to say, to this day no one has been succesful, Venezuela may be the best example and its still very fragile due some self inflicted mistakes and the role of the US sanctions. Ecuador was dismantled by turncoats, Argentina got eroded by economic failure, Mexico is a newer case but its very fragile too and we have witnessed how the bourgeoisie can easily sabotage the economy through capital outflows, aka taking their money to the US. Brazil is in a similar spot to Mexico IMO, with the advantage of not being literally next to the US and thus being able to be a bit more free in their international policy, like being able to take part in BRICS.

still i am not a fan of this way since we are always one bad election cycle away from being back to step 1.

China is able to do what they do because the chinese communists seized power with authority and they themselves created the system of governance, throughout all latin america our system was designed by compradores through military dictatorships, its fundamentally different.

How does Lula handle the military? The one thing we can all learn about Chavismo is the way they handled the military, that is the only reason they haven't been toppled.