There was never a truly communist government anywhere, even if you ask the communists themselves. Don't forget: per Marx, communism was supposed to be the final stage, to be achieved after a period of socialism. USSR was thus the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist Republics" (although in Soviet sci-fi, USCR would sometimes pop up in the future).
If you rephrase the question as whether there's any socialist country that's not a dictatorship, the answer depends on your definition of "country". For example, Rojava is not internationally recognized as such, nor do they claim to be one, but they're a de facto independent polity that leans heavily socialist. For another example, the Zapatistas.
If we look at history, there was never a shortage of revolutionary democratic socialists. The problem is that back when socialist revolutions became viable, socialism as a political ideology was generally violently suppressed in all its forms, and only the most ruthless, authoritarian strains could not only take power, but hold it long enough. Bolsheviks in Russia are the archetypal example, and it's worth noting that the first thing they did after the revolution was disbanding the Constituent Assembly, as soon as they found out that they don't have the majority in it (it was held by other socialist parties, most of them democratic). For comparison, consider the Luxembourgists in Germany, and how their revolution fared.
The other problem is that there's a positive feedback loop there. Once Bolsheviks won in one country, they would sponsor socialist revolutionary movements in other countries - but any such aid would come with ideological strings attached. E.g. in Germany, the communist party was the one receiving funds from the Soviets, and the democratic socialists were labelled "social fascists"; and in Spain, Soviets even physically purged ideologically disagreeable people from the Republican ranks (Orwell has seen his share of that close up). Needless to say, well-funded movements are the ones that usually win, and so Soviet dominance ensured that authoritarian socialists would usually be the ones running the show everywhere else.
If you rephrase the question as whether there's any socialist country that's not a dictatorship, the answer depends on your definition of "country". For example, Rojava is not internationally recognized as such, nor do they claim to be one, but they're a de facto independent polity that leans heavily socialist. For another example, the Zapatistas.
If we look at history, there was never a shortage of revolutionary democratic socialists. The problem is that back when socialist revolutions became viable, socialism as a political ideology was generally violently suppressed in all its forms, and only the most ruthless, authoritarian strains could not only take power, but hold it long enough. Bolsheviks in Russia are the archetypal example, and it's worth noting that the first thing they did after the revolution was disbanding the Constituent Assembly, as soon as they found out that they don't have the majority in it (it was held by other socialist parties, most of them democratic). For comparison, consider the Luxembourgists in Germany, and how their revolution fared.
The other problem is that there's a positive feedback loop there. Once Bolsheviks won in one country, they would sponsor socialist revolutionary movements in other countries - but any such aid would come with ideological strings attached. E.g. in Germany, the communist party was the one receiving funds from the Soviets, and the democratic socialists were labelled "social fascists"; and in Spain, Soviets even physically purged ideologically disagreeable people from the Republican ranks (Orwell has seen his share of that close up). Needless to say, well-funded movements are the ones that usually win, and so Soviet dominance ensured that authoritarian socialists would usually be the ones running the show everywhere else.