On the surface, the phrase “eat the rich” sounds like a fun bit of rebellious sloganeering. It’s edgy, provocative, and meant to shock. But let’s be honest: it’s also one of the dumbest phrases we’ve adopted in leftist spaces. And if we actually care about building a better world, then maybe it’s time we retire it once and for all.
First off, let’s call it what it is — the phrase literally implies cannibalism. We can dress it up in metaphors all we want, but words have power. Language matters. If we, as progressives, want to be taken seriously as the side that champions humanity, dignity, and compassion, then why are we leaning on rhetoric that reduces our opponents to food? Rich people, as much as we may despise their greed, exploitation, and hoarding of resources, are still people. And the moment we start using language that denies their humanity, we fall into the same trap we criticize them for.
Defenders of “eat the rich” will quickly jump in and say, “Oh, we don’t mean it literally.” But that’s the problem. This little game of wink wink, nudge nudge only works within our bubble. Outside of it, people hear the phrase and roll their eyes, or worse, assume that leftists are unhinged radicals who want to bring back some bizarre form of cannibalistic justice. And frankly, that doesn’t exactly win people over to the cause.
Some might argue that it’s just historical rhetoric, a callback to revolutions of the past. Others may point out that cannibalism has existed in certain cultures throughout history, or that it was once ritualized. Who cares? Just because something existed in the past doesn’t mean we need to revive it now as a political slogan. That’s not progress. That’s regression.
Let me be clear: I don’t like the rich either. The ultra-wealthy hoard resources, manipulate systems, and often actively make life worse for everyone else. But disliking the rich doesn’t mean we should stoop to rhetoric that makes us sound like bloodthirsty caricatures. If they dehumanize us through their greed, corruption, and policies, that’s exactly why we should not mirror their behavior. We have to be better. If our politics are supposed to be grounded in justice and compassion, then that should show up in the language we use, too.
When we say “eat the rich,” we hand ammunition to critics who already claim the left is driven by resentment, chaos, or violent impulses. Why make their job easier? Why confirm their worst stereotypes of us? Instead, let’s call for policies that redistribute wealth, strengthen labor power, ensure healthcare, and tax billionaires fairly. Those ideas stand on their own without needing to be dressed up in cheap shock slogans.
At the end of the day, if the left wants to be seen as the movement of dignity and progress, then we need to live up to that standard. That means cutting out language that undermines our values. “Eat the rich” might get a chuckle at a protest, but in the long run, it’s more embarrassing than effective. We can do better — and if we’re serious about winning hearts and minds, we have to do better.