How can we distinguish the revolution of Councils from authoritarian imitation?

A significant part of the anarchists and left-wing (they are different entities, but in some ways similar), always look for somewhere in jungle some armed men. Sure there are anarchists who declare these bearded or mustachioed people a beacon of peace and freedom. After some time we are amazed to find these people are who they have always been: usual left-wing dictatorship, local Bolsheviks or other authoritarian etatist. These people came to power, they are building an inefficient economy with a bloated state-public sector. Then anarchists quietly shut up and find another object for rampage worship and sacrifice. Time after time this story repeats.

But there is a simple method by which we can distinguish real Councils (systems of autonomy and self-government of workers, systems of direct democracy) from authoritarian fakes. Bolshevik's pseudo-Councils only imitate popular participation or use it for their own purposes, destroying and suppressing any opposition.

There is a simple criterion for distinguishing the social revolution of Soviets from the totalitarian movement that imitates Soviets. Any real factory Council or the communal Councils are divided into warring factions (Paris Commune during the Great French revolution and Paris Commune of 1871, workers and village Councils in two Russian revolutions, Councils of Hungary in1956 and Councils of Poland-1980, the acute confrontation in Spanish revolution 1936-1939). There are always fighting factions: anarchists, Bolsheviks, s-d or Mensheviks, intermediate factions, liberals, etc. There are always statists and anti-statists, militant social revolutionaries and peaceful reformists... and even armed reformists. Fractionalism appears due to the fact of social revolution wich is nothing else as self-organization of the working class wich is extremely heterogeneous (different professions, wages, education, ethnicity, etc). In addition other non-parasitic classes such as self-employed workers and farmers, can also participate in the revolution.

Therefore if the real process of self-organization started then factions appear. Different layers of workers are involved in the process of self-organization with their specific interests and ideas. Anton Pannekoek wrote: The point is not that working class is weak because it is splited into fractions. On the contrary, working class is splited into factions because this class is weak and does not possess collective consciousness to pure liberation from all types of exploitation.

Anyway, people are different. I have 10 fundamental differences with my most pleasant neighbor, just like you do with me. Therefore, if the real self-organization started will be a lot of factions and an acute contradiction between them, reinforced by the dramatic revolutionary process also starts. Yes, some fraction can dominate, but others will criticize them.

If all this is there, then we face a social revolution, self-organization, direct democracy. If you see how one activist accuses another of demagoguery deal with American or Russian imperialism and corruption - be sure, everything goes well! There is the sharpest debate, there and only there real life dances.

If the ruling party say "everyone agrees with us", and there is no objection, then this is the enemy. If everyone is silent, except for one ideological direction, so you see dictatorship. You even can see how a significant portion of the local population meets with bread and flags the troops of invaders, because locals sick and tired of noisy leaders.

It's simple. Social revolution? Where are the powerful warring factions? They are not here? Go to hell with your dictatorship.