Yeah it's a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I'm like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it's just as academic as "Debt" was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it's a way for critics to get their name out there.
ZMoney
Check out "The Dawn of Everything" by Wengrow and Graeber
What is wrong with it? I've been using it for years and it does what it's supposed to do.
The Bush administration pioneered the theory of the unitary executive, which is the idea that the president can do anything because he is the president. They're the ones who kicked over the guardrails, they just did it in the context of an endless war that they started. For more on this I recommend Sheldon Wolin's work.
Everyone in the US is complicit. Everyone in NATO member countries is complicit. Everyone not fighting to overthrow their imperialist government is complicit. Again, not the point.
Ok so how does not voting help with this?
You are complicit by living in the US and paying taxes which fund military aid to Israel. Not voting does not absolve you. And in the case of this election, it makes you slightly more complicit because one of the war criminals who is running is slightly worse than the other.
The idea that not voting is some form of protest that has material consequences for the ruling class is ahistorical. It took centuries of struggle to attain universal suffrage. The people in power are perfectly happy to have only a small fraction of the demos exerting any political power at all; in fact this is how most civilizations have functioned for the past few thousand years.
They're only useful for parties imo. Otherwise you put your spatula (or whatever) in the dishwasher and have to wait all week for the dishwasher to fill up with all the other dirty dishes just so you can have your clean spatula back. But yes in the US they are in every kitchen.
The issue is with what they are actually able to accomplish, not what they say they'll do. And that goes for every Democrat since Carter.
What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn't quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It's transparently personal.
Academics write books. Get over it.