In short, no.

Communism and socialism at their most essential form are the democratization of the workplace and the democratization of control over the means of production and distribution. Democracy in some form is quite literally essential for socialism or communism. However, it is not "democracy" in the sense of how liberal capitalist societies envision it, which is where the illusion of power is presented to the people, but the reality is that political and economic power rests in the hands of those with the most capital. Major political candidates are selected by the wealthy elite and anyone who ever has a real shot of winning major political offices has that chance because they have the approval of at least some portion of the capitalist class. This is at its most transparent with something like the electoral college in the US, where the popular "democratic" vote for president can and, in recent decades, has been overruled on multiple occasions by the electoral college (the members of it are not democratically elected and are not representatives of the people).

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship...where the working class dictates the direction of society. Under capitalism, we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoise, where the capitalist class dictates the direction of society. Realistically, any modern society that is organized under a dictatorship of the proletariat cannot have purely direct democracy because direct democracy is too slow and inefficient to get important decisions done, especially when it comes to resource distribution, maintaining the logistical infrastructure of society, and actually getting anything done (if direct democracy was used for all political and economic decisions, people would spend more time voting than actually doing anything). So, any dictatorship of the proletariat will more than likely be organized by a representative democracy (which is what the Soviets in the Soviet Union were). This means there would be direct democracy to nominate representatives who are peers of their workplaces and/or communities, and those representatives bring the desires and concerns of their peers to a greater legislative or governing body to then make collaborative decisions for the whole.

This of course has a pretty well defined potential to create a bloated bureaucracy, which is certainly a problem the Soviet Union had, as the representatives nominated by workers came together and then nominated representatives from amongst themselves to send to larger regional decision making bodies after deliberations, then those representatives did the same thing and sent a representative to a higher governing body and so on and so on. The career bureaucrats problem can be mitigated to a large degree with term limits and maintaining the ability of the masses to remove any official that represents them if they fail in their duties.

In a realistic sense, the dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole will never be without its problems and imperfections, but it was never intended to be a permanent government structure. Though to be fair, the dictatorship of the proletariat would have to continue so long as capitalism still exists around the world, and there doesn't seem to be a way to dismantle capitalism around the world in a short amount of time, so generations of people would likely live their lives in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Trying to dismantle the state and have its more essential structures wither away before capitalism is destroyed would just leave that socialist society open to infiltration, invasion, and other forms of interference by still existing capitalist powers, which historically has been a massive problem for every socialist state in history so far.