There is one good thing about "Abundance:" it makes for much better messaging than the traditional leftist framing.
Traditionally, leftists focused on taking from one side (the rich, owners, capital class) to give to the other (the poor, workers). That makes it appear like this is a zero-sum game and focuses the conversation on givers and takers, and engenders in some/many people fear as the primary response.
I don't think leftists emphasize enough that this is in fact not a zero-sum game: by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, you are not just being fair, you are also automatically generating growth. Capitalist economies are giant machines that suck money from the poor to the rich, and if the poor have nothing, then the rich also eventually starve.
I fully agree with the criticism in the article: Abundance tells a story without villain, and following its recommendations leads to nowhere because the problem is much bigger than what Abundance says it is. At the same time, Abundance focuses on the more. While "more" is not automatically "better," focusing on the former probably reaches a lot more people on an emotional level.