You cannot successfully top-down ban usury. The only was to eliminate it is to get people to voluntarily refuse to participate both as borrower or lender despite the fact that doing so is potentially profitable.
It will never happen, unless you want a static universe. They tried banning usury in the Middle (Dark) Ages, and economic growth became static or declined.
I do not feel like explaining. Assemble the puzzle based on my past writings (but I've seen that you haven't quite assimilated all my writings).
It depends on your definition of slavery. My definition is broad and that is humans will never be equal, so some will always be subservient to others. Society can mask this as social obligations, slave level wages, or whatever, that is still slavery in my definition. I am a tax slave to Uncle Sam. People who think they are free even when they are not, are a form of satiated slave (Stockholm Syndrome being another example of that phenomenon).
Your definition of slavery is simply another way of saying that we will never be entirely free. This is true. However, it ignores the fact that there are degrees of slavery. We can approach freedom gradually over time. Freedom can progress.
Usury descends inevitably into fractional reserve. For the most part there was never a time without money lending. In the middle ages it was simply Christians who could not lend money. Jews were allowed by law to do so. Over time this was viewed to be oppressive and was widely resented it was a major factor in the rise of European anti-antisemitism. Views of the time can be seen in Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice. Shylock is a Jewish moneylender who lends money to his Christian rival, Antonio, setting the security at a pound of Antonio's flesh from next to his heart. His defeat and conversion to Christianity forms the climax of the story.
I understand your arguments that large concentrations of capital were required to facilitate the industrial revolution and that usury and fractional reserve were a necessary part of this process. I agree with it. However, this is just another example of the need for some level of top-down control when knowledge is lacking. At the time and even today there are a lack of options outside of usury when it comes to concentrating funds for large scale projects. The current lack of options does not mean usury is desirable or forever necessary. It simply means we lack the knowledge to move on to a superior system. We are not yet ready to eliminate usury.
However, I believe the knowledge is coming. We will eventually be able to create a society with lower levels of top-down oppression. It is not a process of absolute but rather incremental change.