The nature of the revolutionary assemblies of inhabitants or workers (and their councils) is that all the contradictions immediately come to the surface. Civil war and intervention only add heat, adding to the old contradictions the new contradictions.
Society is multi-layered; the different layers of workers (skilled, unskilled, self-employed), farmers etc. instantly take different positions on a range of issues - issues that it's essential for them. As noted by Anton Pannekoek, the working class is not weak because it is split into factions. On the contrary, it is split into factions because we are weak. It does not and can not be one shared positions on a number of issues due to the fact that the working class is a multi-layered phenomenon. Also If we are talking about the peasants, self-employed workers, and even business representatives in the case of self-organization then splits are inevitable.
Social revolutions are ALWAYS accompanied by an acute struggle of factions. There are no exceptions. Paris Commune during the French revolution and Paris Commune of 1871, Russian workers 'councils in 1917-1918, German workers' councils in 1918-1923 - everywhere we see the struggle of factions. Inside the Spanish revolution 1936-1939, in Hungary 1956, in Polish Solidarity movement 1980-1981 were also fighting factions.
There are powerful groups who in the course of social revolution claim that your party or group is the party of thieves, who sold the revolution to the invaders, and your leader is crazy asshole. If there is no such things then I consider there is no revolution. Or it was but then it was replaced by a dictatorship.
Show me a struggling factions in Rojava.