This Country Must Change: Essays on the ... - Temple University

Rosebraugh, Craig (cont. ed.). 2009. <strong>This</strong> <strong>Country</strong> <strong>Must</strong> <strong>Change</strong>: <strong>Essays</strong> on the Necessity of
Revolution in the USA. Arissa Media Group. Portland, Phoenix, Los Angeles. 231 Pages.
$16.95.
<strong>This</strong> <strong>Country</strong> <strong>Must</strong> <strong>Change</strong>: <strong>Essays</strong> on the Necessity of Revolution in the USA is a
welcome addition to the growing amount of literature emerging today that calls for radical
change to the world in which we live. Unlike some, <strong>This</strong> <strong>Country</strong> <strong>Must</strong> <strong>Change</strong>, as the subtitle
emphasizes, calls not for reformist change from a political administration, but instead for a truly
radical and revolutionary change that would implement a new world for all of us.
One of the goals of this text is to produce a revolutionary document that can be read
easily by the average American. While many texts in recent years have been released calling for
radical social change, many of these, though brilliant, are more readily accessibly to an academic
audience than to the average person toiling and suffering because of the very policies the texts
bemoan. <strong>This</strong> <strong>Country</strong> <strong>Must</strong> <strong>Change</strong> is written in contrast to this, emphasizing language choices
and sentence structures that those who are not already indoctrinated into a movement or have not
read the tomes of radical literature throughout history could engage with. While many books
start by claiming that they hope their work will be accessible to a wider audience, many do not
succeed in doing this; this one does.
<strong>This</strong> success may in part emerge out of the editor’s choice of asking on-the-ground
activists rather than detached academics to write the majority of the chapters included. In this
way, Rosebraugh and the included authors seem to take Marx’s claim that “Philosophers have
only interpreted the world, the point is to change it” seriously. The activist-authors included do
an excellent job of interspersing their personal experience as activists, and sometimes prisoners,
with historical narratives, evidence of successes, occasional theory, and calls for further action.

<strong>This</strong> combination works to produce a praxis-oriented perspective offering the necessary tools and
ideas for a new revolutionary movement.
Though I applaud the decision to write the text in this way, it is not unproblematic. For
example, the editor seems to have left the decision of whether or not to include any sort of
references up to the authors. <strong>This</strong> is understandable if one’s goals emphasize oration to a general
populace rather than academic, peer-reviewed writing. However, we also have to remember that
the book is being released at a time when the general public has not been revolutionized, yet
have access to more information than ever before thanks to the technology “revolution” (a word
that, as the book points out, we overuse, hence the scare quotes). Knowing this,
counterarguments to the important claims in this book are readily available. Therefore, the
average reader, if they are sympathetic to the claims made in the text, should be given the
resources to further educate him or herself after having finished this book. Though some chapters
do offer these resources, they should be included for every chapter. <strong>This</strong> is particularly
important considering the radical claims made in the text—because many readers will have spent
their life being told other narrations of history by state educational apparatuses, having regular
citations in the book would give the chapters a level of authenticity and legitimacy that some
readers may think is lacking otherwise.
The more significant problem faced by this book is a general lack of organization.
Reading the book, there are many connections between the various chapters. For example, a
number of chapters work from an explicitly Marxist perspective. Others emphasize a need for
animal rights, while others still emphasize a broader radical environmental perspective in the
spirit of Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front. Each of these perspectives has its place in
this book, as each is an important part of any coming revolution in the 21 st Century. However,

these chapters are disconnected in the text. Chapters that emphasize radical approaches to
animal rights and / or environmental justice separate from one another chapters specifically
emphasizing a Marxist dialectical class analysis. Furthermore, there are contradictions between
these chapters that a non-revolutionary audience may feel are problematic. Without drawing the
existing and important connections between various revolutionary struggles, such as those for
labor rights, animal rights, and reparations for past atrocities, a reader may be left uncertain
about how a struggle with so many diverse goals can move forward.
An academic audience could easily draw some of these connections for themselves.
Having read Ronal Kuykendall’s chapter “Reification: An Impediment to Social <strong>Change</strong>,” the
most theoretical chapter in the book, one could then better understand Bill Dunne’s “<strong>Change</strong> We
Just Can’t Believe In” or the philosophical underpinnings of the lack of imagination in
movements for social change detailed by Rob Los Ricos in “Power to the Imagination!” Jaan
Laaman and Bill Dunne’s chapters both begin with similar analyses claiming that change is
inherent to anything, and that it is often driven by internal contradictions, such as those in
capitalism. Placing these chapters together, alongside other Marxist analyses emerging out of
Hegelian Dialectics, would make sense. Similarly, the many chapters emphasizing the ever
increasing need for environmental and animal justice could enter into a dialogue with one
another by emphasizing their interconnections—those that describe well the horrors we will face
if we do not deal with our environmental issues would be great precursors to the chapters that
detail successful direct action campaigns against the corporate and government elites who have
created these problems.
Unfortunately, the book is not organized in such a way as to promote this understanding.
While the chapters do speak to one another, their lack of organization leaves me wondering if an

audience that is not already involved in social movements or that has not already read radical
literature will draw these connections as well as they might if the chapters were organized in any
sort of coherent way. Ideally, the editor would have not only organized the chapters better, but
could have also included an introductory and concluding piece to each “section” that would help
draw these connections and helped to further develop the praxis-oriented approach the book
seems to aim for. Especially considering the books laudable goal of reaching those who “have
yet to become involved but realize something is wrong in this society” (4), which seems to be an
increasing number of disillusioned Americans, if the polls can tell us anything, this kind of
organization would have been particularly beneficial.
I am also left wondering why the book limits its focus to the United States of America. It
seems likely that any coming revolution would have to shift its focus away from the isolationist
principle of any given nation-state (an outdated concept, if ever there was one) to a global shift
of justice for all. Some chapters in the book makes it obvious that past principles of radical
change are outdated in its calls for a revolution that is not anthropocentric, meaning that some
authors recognize that a new revolution must be for all and not just for humans, and yet the
books stated focus is to emphasize the necessity for change in the USA. Though arguably this is
where change is most necessary due to the massive impact of the United States on the rest of the
world, our now global society needs global change that does not emphasize the needs of one
imagined community of arbitrarily selected individuals over another. If the authors want us to
believe that we should move beyond anthropocentric revolutionary principles, why not move
past American and Western-centric ones as well? The first full chapter in the book, Jalil A.
Muntaqim’s “Towards a New Amerikan Revolution” argues that America cannot be reformed
without revolution, stating that a new revolutionary struggle will “depend on oppressed peoples

of all nations and classes” (30), so why should the book’s title and emphasis be only on the most
hegemonic of these nations?
That being said, I still encourage anyone who recognizes that really revolutionary change
is necessary, or who simply feels that something is wrong and needs to change, to read this book.
Academics considering using this book for a class might consider reordering the chapters on
their syllabus in order to encourage the kind of connections that are not currently promoted.
They should also be prepared to draw connections that are not made in the book and to teach
aspects of the underlying theory that are not detailed in the chapters. For example, an
understanding of hegemony as detailed by Gramsci, Althusser, and later Laclau and Mouffe
would help one to better understand certain aspects of the text, such as why revolution has not
yet occurred in the United States as well as how historical narratives can be articulated to support
the ruling class when they appear to oppose them. Regardless, its easy to understand style would
be useful in any undergraduate classroom. Non-academics should be equally willing to read this
book. Non-academics will find in this book easy to understand chapters detailing the need for
revolution in such a way that is hard to argue with. I suspect that after reading this book almost
anyone would agree that revolution is necessary. However, both should be prepared to
supplement reading this book with other information gatherings in order to properly analyze and
understand the chapters present here.
Perhaps this book’s best feature is that all of the authors present unrelenting calls for
radical, revolutionary social change. The book pulls no punches in its proposals and does not
hesitate on important issues that might make some readers uncomfortable, such as the possibility
of a need for violence in a coming revolution. <strong>This</strong>, then, leaves the reader finishing the book
craving the know-how to make the revolutionary change that the book convinces us is so

necessary. The book offers some suggestions, though more importantly the authors suggest that
the reader find what is most needed and do it themselves rather than to simply look for others, as
the authors seem to partially agree that this is what the next revolution will need. Furthermore,
the book concludes with an e-mail address (usrevolutionarymovement@gmail.com) that the
reader can contact in order to get more information, talk more about the issues raised in this
book, or get directly involved. Hopefully, after reading this book, many will decide to take that
latter step.
Ed Avery-Natale is a Ph.D. candidate in the Sociology department at Temple University
conducting research on the Anarchist-Punk culture in Philadelphia. He can be contacted at
Edward.Natale@Temple.Edu.