As far as full collectivization is concerned, it doesn't mean there isn't local say on production. Small proprietorships wouldn't really exist in communism, either, if you wanted to bake as a hobby that's fine, but "bakeries" as small petty bourgeois shops wouldn't really have a material basis for existence. In socialism, sure, they'd exist, but in the far future they'd eventually be phased out.

Administration is authority, administration that is mere suggestion isn't administration to begin with. Administration should be accountable, but it is necessarily a use of authority.

As for why cooperatives are petite bourgeois structures, I explained by the geographic differences and having class interests that are self-driven, rather than collectively driven. If a commune doesn't have ownership of another commune's goods, but needs them, then this creates class distinctions.

Your whole "authoritarian Marxist" bit is kinda silly. You don't explain what you mean when you say I'm an "authoritarian" Marxist, nor what a "non-authoritarian Marxist" would be, nor how Lenin is involved in our discussion. This is all based on Marx's development of scientific socialism, we didn't get into vanguards, imperialism, or Lenin's other advancements on Marxism. This is all in the realm of Marx's theory of the state.

As for tribal societies, they are by far the mode of production with the longest history, yes. However, since the rise of class society and technological advancements that came along with it, there has never been a "pure" mode of production. We can't simply go back to being hunters and gatherers, but we can advance society onward into socialism, and then communism. I swept nothing under the rug, tribal formations aren't something we can replicate while retaining large-scale industry, and there's no reason to think we can meet the needs of humanity as it presently exists even if we all collectively agreed to form tribal societies now.