If there is no desire on their end to break their chains, chances are they're still under effect of (the ruling) ideology; that this ideology still manages to mask their real conditions of existence as ultimately nothing but wage-labourers under a system of commodity production, where their labour is separated from them.
If history shows us anything to vindicate the following, with most notably Marx as observer of it and in hindsight accurately so, it is that the workers themselves will it some point, at first perhaps but in small numbers, notice their predicament and revolt against it. Marx's project as such started out as an analysis of the phenomenon of workers already struggling against capital, even organizing themselves in new ways such as unions and communes, and so on. Our job as communists is here not to hijack, lead or substitute the proletariat, but tail it, support it where it needs help and help it find its mode of organization or, if it already has, fulfill the tasks it cannot. Be that in the class party, councils, class unions, etc. or whatever form it takes.
But we very easily "trick" them, or mislead them. Many communists, of various different flavours and persuasions, have ultimately done just that: funneled the expression of working class discontent towards ends that ended that expression, made it eclipse, made it fade or even outright killed them.
I'm not going to bother going into why this latter thing you said is wrong, but again, no: we as a caste of communists standing outside of the workers' movement aren't going to create shit, not because I don't want us to, but because we can't. We create a new system by abolishing the wage-labouring (proletarian) condition, which means we need to ultimately see to it that the proletariat in its entirety engage in self-abolition; realize its negative position in the capitalist mode of production and end it.
As communists we are both against bettering the wage-labourer's condition as we are against worsening it. As history has continually shown, it has always been the bourgeoisie that before us communists wanted to better the conditions of the working class; make it healthier, more comfortable and thus mode productive wage-labour:
>To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of “socialism” has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
If we want to alter the way workers fare under capitalism, we are better off just participating in any tenant bourgeois organization and dropping the moniker of communist altogether, for bourgeois society does all the necessary to be the kind slavemaster. But we are communists, and we are not for keeping human subjects wage-labourers, we are for helping them find their own abolition as such and becoming freely associating individuals; individuals that no longer identify one another through objects, commodities, by isolating themselves as producers.
