Sure, it means “redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all” but it sure doesn’t say that.

So what's the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?

Why is "eat the reach" messaging that "lost the plot" if the slogan does exactly what it's supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?

And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute “source demographic” with “individual in that demographic?”

I don't know, you tell me. I don't see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding "eat the rich" plaques. I still don't quite get what's this phrase being used as an example for given it's so inconsequential.