Marxism-Leninism inherent to the ideology requires a centralized authority to seize control of the means of production on behalf of the proletariat

False. What's your source on this? Even in attempts like the USSR, most of the agricultural land was worked through collectively owned Kolkhoz. And in the starts of the USSR, many Marxist-Leninists like Trotsky or Kollontai argued for increasing protagonism of unions in the decision-making power of the state. Furthermore, Marxist-Leninists believe the power should fundamentally reside collectively and democratically in worker-councils or soviets. The existence of a state isn't antithetical with democracy, and the state making collective decisions based on elected soviet representatives isn't authoritarian, but a very high form of democracy.

The ideas of worker led industries where leadership is elected is a great idea and many implementations of worker coops and worker run corporations in the day have worked quite well, but centralized economic planning like what we saw in the days of the soviet union throughout the Cold War ended up failing quite spectacularly on multiple occasions.

Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of history and of Marxism-Leninism. You seem to believe that Marxist-Leninists want to impose a purely top-down structure, but that's nothing further from the truth. The concept of the "vanguard party" isn't a benevolent dictatorship, it's an organization of Marxist intellectual elites that continuously engages with the people, and translates their demands into Marxist language and policy. The leadership in many industries in the USSR was elected by the unions, not imposed top-down from a bureaucracy of party members. The existence of a central economic plan isn't antithetical to democracy, on the contrary it can catalyze the will of the majority into concrete economic policy instead of leaving it to the independent desires of cooperatives that may or may not align with that of the majority. As for central planning "failing spectacularly on multiple occasions", again I'm going to need sources. The USSR's economy steadily grew at a very fast pace from 1920 to 1980s, with a minor hiccup in growth in the last decade of its existence, and the only time with big shortages being perestroika, when liberalizations took place and markets were allowed.

I could go on a whole tangent on worker owned and led coops, and ideas on how to leverage the responsiveness of a free market with the incentive systems focused on solving distribution rather than maximizing profit

But why do you think markets are a better mechanism? The lack of a central planning doesn't automatically mean democracy, it means just that independent actors do whatever they can. Economic planning is extremely mature as a science nowadays and we see it with (sadly evil) examples like Walmart or Amazon, and with modern computational power we could truly bring wonders to the world if we planned our economies as collectively and democratically as possible.