I strongly doubt the adequacy of the right-left division in the modern world. I myself belong to a political movement that came from the ultra-left tradition. But it is so different from most people among the so-called leftists (actually, they are very different from each other) that it can hardly be called "leftists". I will give an analogy - the alevites among Muslims . Alevites are so different from other Muslims (their belief in the sacredness of work , equality of men and women, and reincarnation) that they should hardly be called "Muslims".
The USSR and Western capitalism, Hitler and Stalin are all alien for people who defend the ideas of council communism . We do not swoon at the comparison of Stalin and Hitler, we reject fascism and anti-fascism and we do not intend to defend the British Empire or USA. We are disgusted with Chavez and Maduro, Clinton and Trump, western imperialism and the so-called national liberation movements. We are opposed to any imperialist wars and conflicts. We reject everything that divides workers people including nationalism and any separatism.
By rejecting wage labor, we are opposed to everything that many of the leftists supports: parties, trade unions, parliamentarism, state planning. Our ideas of the class struggle are behind the innumerable divisions imposed on workers by the state, its religions and spectacles .
We do not support left-wing identity politics and separatist feminism, we do not swoon if people joke about Jews or Blondes and we stand for equality of men and women, Arabs and Jews, Germans and Poles in the common struggle. While respecting differences and minorities, we are in favor of freeing the majority of people from wage labor.
The heart of our views is the idea of autonomous workers ’ councils created during the class struggle of the lower classes, during their resistance and revolts against business and state. Revolutionary organizations are always created by the masses themselves in the course of the social struggle whether it is the Commune of Paris in 1871, the Workers ’Councils in Budapest in 1956, the Workers ’ Councils in Iran in 1979 and in Iraq during the uprising against Saddam Hussein in 1991.
This modern struggle of grassroots workers is chaotic and often misguided (like the demand for a government made up of non-partisan experts in Iraq and Lebanon, or constitutional reform in Chile). Nevertheless, giant waves of class resistance from Chile to Iraq, from strikes in Italy to Tahrir square riot in Cairo, come every 5-10 years in the 21st century. No epidemics and no repression will be able to prevent this global movement against modern turbo-capitalism. Business itself has created huge networks of production and information that have engulfed the planet, and now the resistance also has become global.
In time the masses will gain the necessary experience and will be able to create the thing which is called a “party” by Anton Pannekoek (but it would be better to call it a revolutionary minority like the German KAPD or AAUD-E or the radical anarcho-communists “Friends of Durruti” in Spain). This core is not a bureaucracy commanding the masses, nor a force intent on taking power. This is the initiator of protests, the generator of certain ideas and practices, the active core of the working class, which initiates strikes and protests and prepares the creation of councils.
However, it is not the party, but the Autonomous assemblies of workers themselves (and the Councils strictly controlled by these regular assemblies) that will establish their power, taking control of all spheres of public life.
We could speed up this process by creating an international network of activists, protestors, publicists, etc., which could become a translator and distributor of this ideas in our countries. Today, the authorities are trying to block different States. Our goal is to create an international network in order to build a the human universe without borders, without businessmen, without officials, without poverty.
You've got this backwards, everyone of those groups followed after the explosion in class struggle and were not its initiators. Many of them arguably only got off the ground when the class conflicts had already begun to decline.
They weren't the generators of anything, the relationship was the inverse.
Many of your examples don't fit your description either, the Friends of Durruti were members of a syndicalist union and wanted a movement dominated by an alliance of the unions, the AAUD-E was also a union movement and the KAPD was split between a union wing that essentially existed just to support the AAUD and AAUD-E who were themselves formed after the council movement had already been established and was being rolled back. And a party faction which absolutely did see its role as leading the working class to take power in much the same way as any other party.