2) if there IS a system to keep such things contained and solve problems, then said system WILL be the place in which corruption is more likely to sprout from
Which wouldn't necessarily be any worse than the equivalent institutions that exist under any other system. All you've shown is that the fall back system under a decentralized socio-economic system is no worse than what we already have. There's certainly no reason to think society would be
more corrupt if employee-owned local corporations were more common.
If autocratic structures are inherently bad, then they must be inherently bad in both the public and private sectors. Think about the kinds of bullshit we blame government for, then compare that to similar bullshit dealing with bank errors or large phone companies.
It's the same shit. Who owns it isn't the issue - inefficient screw ups are inherent to large centralized organizations.
Marx was actually talking about historical
stages. i.e. his idea of socialism is that it would supercede capitalism in the same sense that capitalism superceded feudalism. "revolution" in the sense of "industrial revolution" not "french revolution". So, cooperatives and employee-owned corporations can arise
gradually - they can exist contemporaneously with autocratic corporations and still in fact meet Marx's predictions, in the same way that feudalism didn't magically end all at once. But the idea is that this sort of economic arrangement will win out because it's
better. When employees own the corporation there's less overheads with management and unions basically disappear. This was experienced in the Brazilian company Semco. Under a industrial-democratic system with generous profit sharing, unions vanished, management costs plummeted and revenue grew from $4 million to $200 million in a decade. Because such a system is just
better. Sure, there are autocrats holding onto their mega-corps right now, but those structures are
massively inefficient. They can hold on for a while however, in the same sense that feudal lords held out for centuries. But in the end, efficiency inevitably wins, which was Marx's point about historical inevitability.