Notice how everyone knows what is needed to be able to eat or mulch a person, but no-one is directly mentioning the part about killing being required.

I don’t know why we need euphemisms for this. Genuinely I’m asking, not presenting an opinion.

It would be very crass indeed to talk about killing the rich, but the cold hard fact is that if psychotic people are leading the entire planet to get properly fucked, it’s the moral thing to do to get rid of them somehow.

Obviously humanitarian values hold that one shouldn’t kill needlessly.

I guess “eat the rich” reminds us of what we need to do and why; because the poor are hungry for the resources the fucked up rich people are hoarding. It’s also very clearly implied that we could kill the rich, but that we’re willing to avoid it if our hunger gets sated some other way.

In other words “hey rich assholes, we’re not violent people, but unless you start making this more fair, this is going to end up in a situation in which we will have to resort to violence, and there’s a lot more of us than there are of you”.

Or as Percy Bysshe put it more eloquently a few centuries ago in a political poem (thought to perhaps be the first modern statement of the principle of nonviolent resistance.)

Stand ye calm and resolute, Like a forest close and mute, With folded arms and looks which are Weapons of unvanquished war.

And if then the tyrants dare, Let them ride among you there; Slash, and stab, and maim and hew; What they like, that let them do.

With folded arms and steady eyes, And little fear, and less surprise, Look upon them as they slay, Till their rage has died away:

Then they will return with shame, To the place from which they came, And the blood thus shed will speak In hot blushes on their cheek:

Rise, like lions after slumber In unvanquishable number! Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you: Ye are many—they are few!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_Anarchy