I've noticed a parallel between the reformists and concilliationists of the past and those of the likely future. During the degeneration of the 2nd International, the center (exemplified by Kautsky) held the permanently opportunist position that in the absolutist nations, a national democratic revolution must come before a socialist revolution.
Today this 'Stageism' is treated like a relic from the past. It seems probable that a number of modern so-called 'Marxists', if confronted by an outbreak of revolutionary energy from the proletariat of a currently authoritarian state-capitalist nation (such as Myanmar, Iran, Libya, Syria, China, DPRK, Laos, etc) will react instinctively like the opportunists, reformists, apparatchik, of the past and demand a transition to a national bourgeois-democratic republic. The CP's, SP's, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc have a long track record of doing such in the flare-ups since WWII (support for the Vietnamese CP and Liberation Front, support for the Iranian 'revolutionary clericism', the Nepali Constituent Assembly, etc). While I'm not familiar with the press of said groups during the breakdown and dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and USSR, it is likely that the Slavic and Asian workers were encouraged to support 'progressive' democratization by at least some of them (with others still saying state capitalism is a progressive move toward 'real existing socialism').
Is such a movement toward national democratization a 'snowball'- grows with momentum, building and building, or is it a movement that can be turned back to working class revolution? Do communists have to influence events strongly from the beginning, or can they adequately move the workers who are already following the bourgeois parties?