The "Rich Men North of Richmond" Should be Oliver Anthony's Only Target

Critical support requires criticism, and solidarity requires us to understand material class division.

A new working-class country music anthem has appeared in Oliver Anthony’s “Rich Men North of Richmond.” In many ways, it is a return to form for country music: a portrayal of the stories and struggles of everyday individuals.

The artist laments about the challenges of living in a modern world with age-old problems and points at the overarching influence of the rich and powerful.

However, the song’s second verse takes an unexpected twist. Rather than solidifying the bond between the working class, the lyrics diverge into targeting a specific group: obese people on welfare.

If my introduction to the song had been more along the lines of “There's a proto-class consciousness here... maybe he doesn't quite get there because he's hung up on people on welfare eating fudge, but whatever” (you know… critical support), this probably wouldn’t have been something I’d flagged as worth talking about.

However, my introduction to this song was through people calling themselves communists uncritically defending the song by saying, “Welfare queens are the enemies of the working class.”

All this tells me is that suburban right-communists have no idea what it is like to be poor.

I Like The Song

I debated not saying so, but I think this song is good. I only sometimes like the things I am criticizing, and post-1970s country is mostly terrible, but this song evokes the kind of country music built from poignant tales of “the salt of the Earth,” a group I see myself as coming from.

The lyrics begin:

I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bullshit pay
So I can sit out here and waste my life away
Drag back home and drown my troubles away

It's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you
Wish I could just wake up and it not be true
But it is, oh, it is

Livin' in the new world
With an old soul
These rich men north of Richmond
Lord knows they all just wanna have total control
Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do
And they don't think you know, but I know that you do
'Cause your dollar ain't shit and it's taxed to no end
'Cause of rich men north of Richmond

Instead of merely focusing on superficial themes, it delves into the working class's authentic struggles, highlighting issues that are all too real for many people today.

But then it shifts:

I wish politicians would look out for miners
And not just minors on an island somewhere
Lord, we got folks in the street, ain't got nothin' to eat
And the obese milkin' welfare

Well, God, if you're 5-foot-3 and you're 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds
Young men are puttin' themselves six feet in the ground
'Cause all this damn country does is keep on kickin' them down

The criticism of fat people on welfare in the song revives stereotypes that have historically been explicitly used to create rifts in the working class. I believe this undermines the song's highlighting working-class struggles.

Societally speaking, there's a layered bias against those who are overweight and on welfare. Being overweight is often misconstrued as a result of overconsumption, inaccurately linking it to affluence, while receiving welfare is falsely equated to undeserved handouts. These misconceptions perpetuate an individualistic worldview that values personal effort over community, despite such views being detached from the realities many face.

Further, welfare programs often come with stringent work requirements. There are exceptions (and, yes, some abuse these programs), but the majority must meet work prerequisites to receive aid. This misperception might be because certain groups, like the so-called "MAGA communists," primarily consist of suburban youth who lack firsthand experience with such programs.

Speaking from personal experience, I once had to rely on unemployment benefits. It was, unfortunately, a necessity for survival, ensuring that my ex-wife (who was then pregnant with my oldest) and I didn't starve as I searched for employment. The process was not only embarrassing but also dehumanizing. On the reasonable end, I was required to actively seek work. However, I was pushed to indiscriminately apply for any available positions, including ones that didn't align with my skills or capabilities, simply to demonstrate my intent in a job market that was near-totally decimated.

During that period, financial constraints led to poor dietary options (not poor choices). Relying on cheap, readily available food like that from Dollar Tree might sustain a person, but it causes weight gain – and it did for me. In recent years, I’ve worked diligently to lose most the 60 lbs I put on then. Still, it was only possible through gaining financial stability, allowing me to eat better and have time to exercise (more recently, including the ability to pay for a gym membership).

People on welfare shouldn't be stigmatized or viewed as adversaries. Instead, they are people grappling with circumstances and being stripped of their dignity to survive.

This perception of obesity and/or welfare utilization is a modern proxy for the old ideology of “idleness.” This is a misguided perspective, a form of false consciousness that serves to divide, particularly among white individuals. While it affects everyone, it mainly targets and marginalizes what society may deem the “unworthy white.” I’d direct people to White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg to further understand. She does a great job showing how this fosters a eugenic worldview which not only eventually supports bigotry against racial minorities but also directs people away from class-based thinking.

Reaction

We can see that these so-called “communists” buy this ideology full-stop in response to my highlighting of this aspect of the song:

Also, while I am certainly sympathetic to sexual and gender minorities (being one), it doesn’t matter that I am demonstrably critical of “LGBTQ+” gender ideology because I am also critical of traditional gender ideology, which somehow has something to do with this:

While the right-communists champion the song uncritically, the shitlib elite Chapo Trap House left manages to be worse about it, not only being uselessly divisive about obesity but also dismissing the song’s proto-class consciousness:

Chapo's Matt Christman can be seen pulling the classic cancel culture move of hoping he can transfer people calling him “soy” onto others by calling them “soy”:

This focuses on consciousness and ideology rather than material relationships, which accepting proto-class consciousness as class consciousness can only encourage. While some aspects of this song are conducive to advancing a communist agenda, it is essential to note the aspects that are not. It is good to offer critical support for such types of culture, but “critical support” requires criticism.

Political realities are complex. No one will ever align perfectly with everyone else at the mass level; thus, we must take what we can get. But that doesn’t mean doing so haphazardly. Where some leftists have taken the Chapo approach and rejected the song wholesale, I’ve seen more well-intentioned ones acknowledge the good points but still reject it as “faux-populism.” This mistake reads as a wholesale rejection to those the song resonates with because it’s being called fraudulent.

This song isn’t fake. It’s authentic, and people resonate with it because they’re living overtime hours for bullshit pay. The rich prey on the poor, and anyone whose target is the ruling capitalist class should embrace that. But it’s not hard to do so while saying, “People on welfare should not be viewed as enemies, but people who are being stripped of their dignity to survive. Poor people often have bad diets because unhealthy food is cheap.” Rather than accusing, we should be engaging.

When ordinary people hear messages like this, they do not think about it like these polarized online movements do. I would encourage people to take some time to look outside the political sphere and look at normal people’s reactions:

Imagine telling this man, “This song is bullshit.” I sincerely doubt he would take me seriously. Also, I don’t think this song is bullshit; it’s real and resonates with people. That doesn’t mean I can’t have a critical view of part of it, and most people would hear me out on talking about what it’s like to grocery shop at Dollar Tree.

Unfortunately, it’s not well-intentioned people simply making mistakes about how to approach others that are the primary forces known for “communism” today; it’s people who argue and reject based entirely on reactionary cultural stances (even ones labeled “progressive”). Still, it also makes it clear why people seem unable to engage in material analysis, instead stuck in the realm of ideals.

Viral

I feel as if I could simply rewrite my previous post, “Karla Marx, Fox News, and The Woke Brigade,” again for this one. Here, another proto-class-conscious, working-class person is going “viral” for saying something that borders on “getting it.” We also have right-wing personalities and outlets doing everything possible to “claim” him. But this time, in addition to woke leftists uncritically hating on it, right-communists bolster the wrong parts.

It often seems there's a strategic effort to redirect any emergent proto-class consciousness into a debate that avoids addressing the core class dynamics. Whether this redirection is intentional or people unknowingly following prevailing incentives will likely remain debatable, as the rogues’ gallery of online influencers is a revolving door.

This situation highlights a significant challenge any contemporary dissident movement faces: the absence of organizational structure.

The realm of dissident discourse, left or right, is governed by something I long ago dubbed “attentionomics.” Instead of disseminating a deliberate message, myriad voices broadcast many opinions. The algorithm, acting in service of its owners’ interests, sifts through them to find which messages it thinks will attract the most attention. As a result, individuals often echo what gains traction – either out of a cynical acknowledgment of its attention-grabbing potential or simply equating popularity with the truth.

Thus, polarized messages that wholly embrace or starkly reject dominate the discourse. This binary perpetuates a reactive cycle, with one opinion inevitably leading to its counterpart in this attention market. Unfortunately, the emphasis remains on these reactions, leaving minimal room for any meaningful action.

While the redirection away from emergent proto-class consciousness may not be entirely intentional, there has undoubtedly been a concerted effort among corporate-controlled art and media to foster a decentralization fetish. This lack of focus and direction leads to bloat and factionalism, allowing these ideologies to take root. And once there’s an accepted ideology, nothing has to be intentional.

Conclusion

The viral success of “Rich Men North of Richmond” and the subsequent reactions it invoked showcases a cultural and political dichotomy we cannot ignore. With its authentic portrayal of working-class struggles, the song offers a lens through which we can examine society's tensions.

On the one hand, it serves as a reminder of the genuine issues the working class faces every single day. Conversely, it engages in a divisive narrative targeting a specifically vulnerable group within the working class, ultimately encouraging others to. It reminds us of the pitfalls and biases deeply embedded within even the most well-intentioned narratives.

I’d like to see Oliver Anthony and Jessica McCabe (whom I called Karla Marx) sit down and have a long-form discussion. Both would likely level out many of the other’s blind spots. McCabe seems to more robustly understand the effects of the diminishing monetary value assigned to work. At the same time, Oliver’s attacks on the elite would probably map very well to her assertions that there are only two classes.

But I doubt that will happen because their consciousness is not meant to crawl from the proverbial muck and evolve. To take these viral hits and allow them to evolve further while in the media spotlight (rather than to dilute their messages with compartmentalized oversaturation) would likely harm those that own the media spotlight.

The best we can and should do is engage with what they get right while contrasting it with what they get wrong.