> After that, _Debt_ makes an argument which depends only on a
> characteristic of capitalism that virtually anyone can agree on, not
> taking on too many ("ontological") commitments in a history book which
> is, after all, about debt and not capitalism.)
Yeah. The critical reviews I've read of Debt have mostly amounted to criticizing Graeber for the book he didn't write the book, not the one he did write.
> PS: Another odd thing about Stützle's article is "Graeber’s account
> exhibits a rather vague understanding of capitalism, and in accordance
> with the anarchist tradition assigns a dominant role to the state."
This is a tic and a rhetorical device, not a serious appraisal of what anarchism mostly believes.