I read it, and recall there being a bit more to it than that. For one thing—of many—the book treats extensively of debt as a kind of social glue, fundamental to human relationships & societies, which isn't compatible with: "see, debt is slavery and always has been."

One consistent problem I've had trying to take in criticism of the book (and I have looked for it!) is that it rarely seems to have been written by people who read the same book I did. It's bizarre.

I think what frustrates people is two things.

First, the lengthy slog through ancient African societies which then suddenly ~lands at very on-the-nose messaging and what feels like the “real point” or basically a total revamp of the book’s themes up to that point. But this occurs when you’re already pretty deep into the book.

Second, If I had to guess, and I don’t say this with snark, the Book’s timing is another factor. There’s this sense that a bait and switch occurred where an interesting, nuanced book in the post ‘08 era is started in good faith, and an Occupy WS diatribe suddenly shows up halfway through.

Fair - the author was very involved in Occupy, so sure buyer beware. But it was published at a time when many of the book’s readers, and the US at large, had had it with Occupy and it’s themes. But, readers still tried to make an effort to absorb ideas from that side of the house, as ‘11-12 was no economic Cakewalk. Regardless, that honest effort lands squarely back in Occupy territory, but it took 200 pages to get there.

Its more like 'if debt is treated like anything other then non-enumerated social glue' slavery and imperialism are the inevitable result.

And it is incredibly unannounced because that is very clearly his view.

You definitely did not read the book if that's what you think it's saying.

It wouldn't have 500 pages if it was just "debt = slavery" :p

Lots of the 1-star reviews of it on Amazon, for instance, are by people who seemed to have skimmed it, because they'll level complaints like "the book said X, which is ridiculous because Y!" when the book explicitly identifies and addresses exactly Y within a paragraph or two of introducing X. It's like they're not familiar with that form of writing[0] and, on reading something they think may have problems, just skip ahead to the next argument.

Longer-form criticism I've read of it tends to exhibit similar, if less egregious, problems with reading comprehension. Which is frustrating because I suspect the book actually does have issues and oversights that would be nice to read about from a person with the right background who actually closely read & understood the book.

[0] I do have my suspicions about what kind of economic/political writing these folks are used to reading, that's (evidently) conditioned them not to expect anything resembling a sincere and thorough attempt to address problems with an assertion or argument to follow close on the heels of same assertion or argument, so may incline them toward skipping ahead or skimming heavily on reading something they immediately think of an objection to....