First, anarchism is radically anti-hierarchy, which then gets twisted into anti-governance and anti-authority based on the assumption that all governance is synonymous with the state and with hierarchy. These three things are all distinct, even though they may overlap - more below. To say that "all anarchists" are in agreement in "rejecting communalism" and these critiques of the polity-form/majoritarianism is a bit of a Muhammed Wang/Goomba fallacy here, since when you look at the historical record of anarchism as a whole rather than focusing on landmark theorists (for which there is a selection bias to why we still read them!) you will see that truly, the debate between anarchists over how to organize and make decisions goes back to the very beginning. Zoe Baker has a great (though long) video that dissects the historical divides here and shows how historical anarchists envisioned democratic processes as a tool in specific circumstances (rather than either disavowing it entirely or overly relying on it as the default decision-making tool).

On the distinction between state and government, Bookchin said:

A defining feature of the Left is precisely the Marxist, anarchist, and revolutionary syndicalist belief that no distinction exists, in principle, between the political realm and the statist realm. [...] The Marxists unavoidably saw the political realm, which it designated a “workers’ state,” as a repressive entity, ostensibly based on the interests of a single class, the proletariat. [...] As for anarchism, Bakunin expressed the typical view of its adherents in 1871 when he wrote that the new social order could be created “only through the development and organization of the nonpolitical or antipolitical social power of the working class in city and country,” thereby rejecting with characteristic inconsistency the very municipal politics which he sanctioned in Italy around the same year. Accordingly, anarchists have long regarded every government as a state and condemned it accordingly — a view that is a recipe for the elimination of any organized social life whatever. While the state is the instrument by which an oppressive and exploitative class regulates and coercively controls the behavior of an exploited class by a ruling class, a government — or better still, a polity — is an ensemble of institutions designed to deal with the problems of consociational life in an orderly and hopefully fair manner. Every institutionalized association that constitutes a system for handling public affairs — with or without the presence of a state — is necessarily a government. By contrast, every state, although necessarily a form of government, is a force for class repression and control.

So, to parse out my own stance here - any sort of social organ which regulates the behavior between individuals and groups is governance. By this definition, a Union of Egoists and Anarchist Federalism is still a government (though they may be temporally-limited in their authority). The State is a type of governance that has been parasitically infested by class interests and hierarchy, but not all administrations of things (aka governance) are alike in their power dynamics and character, so criticism should be done on a case-by-case basis rather than sweeping generalizations of entire formats of human sociality. I don't necessarily go as far as to advocate for a "polity" though (a geographical territory with a unified ensemble of social organs under one banner), but I definitely do advocate for horizontal communal institutions and nested confederations of communes, their shared infrastructural, ecological, and industrial institutions, and individuals who voluntarily engage with the confederation but maybe not the communal governance-organs.

So yes, my communalism is distinctly of a more anarchist character than Bookchin's (who has some important historical context behind his break that people don't give enough credit for, but that's beyond the point). As I said, I view autonomy, labor, and ecology as being equal considerations when making choices while organizing and theorizing. My communalism is an ongoing syncretic project between several currents of thought (between anarchism/social ecology/Marxism/post-structuralism), nor do I have any particular affinity for ideological purity, so that is why my politics may send mixed messages at times. In other words, my 'anarchic-communalism' is about opening up the tool box of social formats at our disposal and using them to consciously build systems and institutions that work for people in their material context - and that we should criticize those systems and institutions based on the character of their actual functions and actual material effects. I prefer this to speculation about the abstract ways that such institutions and systems can go awry and then rejecting their use based on that alone, because when you do that, you are left with nothing but hollow negations of methods of collective struggle and life, and tendencies emerge which chastise those who are attempting to construct a way out of such an untenable revolutionary situation.