Ok I see my misunderstanding here. In that case, let me offer an explanation for why you should be more radical.
There’s a reason that the banks and ruling class were worried about antiwork. It’s not a coincidence that this came out and then not long after a coordinated attack between the billionaire media forces and wreckers in the community to heighten the drama happened alongside the creation of a space (by yet more financial bros) to coopt the split they created and deradicalise the movement.
The negotiating position of “workreform” is weak. They are very sophisticated at stringing workers along with reasons that workreform can’t happen, and it leaves workers in a weak position begging for change.
The negotiating position of “antiwork” on the other hand? It had no intent to negotiate. It terrified the ruling class because it showed a position that was essentially “we will abolish you”. It scared them because they knew that if such a movement continued they would be forced to make changes happen, or face the reality of that abolishment.
The fear here is significantly important. A movement that strikes fear into the opposition drives them to change, a movement that does not is unlikely to see much success beyond individual victories - and they like that.
Consider another scenario - which of these messages do you find to be more effective rhetoric for the urbanist movement? /r/fuckcars or /r/automotivereform ?