Not every society is authoritarian. Tribal, classless societies were not so, they had no state. A fully collectivized, ie communist system will have no class, and thus no need for one class to oppress others, ie is not authoritarian. Every existing society in between those is authoritarian, from the feudal lords to the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, each ruling class will wield the state and thus authority to resolve class contradictions. I already explained the differences in degrees of oppression, and how they depend more on circumstances than an implicit desire for control. It's better for the proletariat to be in charge than the bourgeoisie.

Socialism is pre-communism. Socialism is a mode of production where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and controlled, ie the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. Communism is when all production globally has been collectivized, and thus is classless, and therefore stateless (though not without management, administration, or planning). Further, even collectivized systems allow for rewards for individual contributions, no socialist country in history has had equal pay, Marx railed against "equalitarians." The process of sublimating all property is a gradual one, private property in socialism is something expected to vanish over time as firms grow and are folded into the collectivized system.

Finally, "human nature" has nothing to do with our conversation. I don't see why you think communism can only work at a small scale, when the opposite is the case, communism can only be realized globally. I think you're mixing up anarchist economics with Marxist economics.