Given the choice of working for a living or living off plunder there is little contest.[...]
Forget the tales of Hollywood freedom fighters fighting tyranny
I think you didn't read too much deeply our posts. Nobody really denied that Servile Wars were about Good vs. Evil, or neither we used Kubric as a prime source.
However, and while we're tributary of prime sources that have generally a wholly negative point (we're talking about people seen as cattle, and everyone joining them as irremediably bad people) as for slave revolts in general in societies using slavery widely (Zanj Revolt to Turner Rebellion).
Using a-critically this viewpoint is at best dubious, especially when we beneficy from different viewpoints even if bathed in the general take, as with Plutarch. For instance the whole thing with Spartacus about to plunder Rome is essentially a fantasy of a people traumatized by the Italian success of servile armies.
Likewise, labelling these ones as PLA's anticipation, or organised banditry are both projections on a momvement we don't know much about and critically not their goals : the best we can attempt is to look at their moves and try to make sense out of it. It's why many studies focus on the inner divisions and disparities of servile armies, rather than painting them as a hierarchically organized revolt, following Roman models too closely to be that believable.
Long story short, removing a label just to replace it by another isn't that much sensible, especially when it's based on "Humans are like that" or "I know what I'll have chosen"-style generalisation.
Critically when most of the slaves were from Gaul and Germania, enslaved in the wake of Cimbric War, and pretty much able to find back homes, instead of being systematical pressure, risk of enslavement of death, and with poor supply even with plunder.
Spartacus is not the former: in spite of the Romans his army moved and fought by factions.
It seems that even Romans had to integrate Spartacus on their accounts (often by making him some sort of son of a Roman/King, adding weird stories, in order to explain his dominance).
That Spartacus had charismatic domination over at least part of the Servile armies is mostly unchallenged. What is is which kind of domination : on this, we don't know how deep and how general it was, or not.
I don't see much reason why he should be different of an Eunus/Antiochus as for power, once removed the obvious geostrategic difference, when Romans didn't made that : we could speculate a lot about this, but for good or worse, we're dependent of sources that certainly don't depict Spartacus as only a minor chief among the whole armies. (That said, they mention other chiefs as Crixios that probably had equal standing).