History seems to be pretty clear that people will only be turned towards revolution under certain situations. Voluntarist organizations will desperately seek to increase their membership through any means, usually by taking up shitty bourgeois politics, but the fact is that:
1. Given the present conditions, it is impossible to build a large "fighting propaganda group " that is genuinely revolutionary.
2. Given the very, very unlikely situation that such a thing could be built, it's very questionable whether it could have any meaningful impact on its own.
It is a mistake(and even reactionary to a degree) to just look to the movements of the past and mechanically apply them to the situation of today. The mass movements of the late 19th and early 20th century are gone, and such things are no longer possible or even desirable since they were ultimately shown to have their foundations on sand.
Though one of the important things to stress is that it's not like these people are "wrong" and we're "right" in the sense that one must just plug in the right formula to achieve success and become relevant; it's about realizing that ultimately no matter what we try to do, there are big limits on what activists can do, so shit like reformism, nationalism, and anti-imp might as well be tossed even if that means a smaller member base(as if it was relevant anyway).
Ravachol also brings up a good point in that most peoples' conception of communism seems to involve a generalization of the proletarian condition rather than its abolition, but that's opening another can of worms.
