no? If they’re not being productive, then odds are they’re taking advantage of the system and don’t deserve the same amount of resources from distribution. Everyone getting an equal share of the resources doesn’t really work out for the system, as it ignores the individual needs of the members of the collective, so people with higher needs will have a bigger share, and people with lower needs will get a smaller share. People who are perfectly able to help out in their community but don’t, made a choice for themselves to accept a lesser share, because they don’t need nearly as many resources as the people who are helping their community.

For instance, someone who chooses to spend all day every day sitting on their couch playing video games needs significantly less than the person who’s spending all day in the fields ploughing for winter wheat. The former isn’t being productive, so they’re not entitled to the distribution of resources. Whereas the latter is being productive and deserves what the former chose not to work for. We can get into the weeds on the pointless argument of ‘how much work makes you productive’, but imo we really don’t need to, to simplify that we’ll say; As long as a person lends their time to their community enough that the community is happy with them, they’re entitled to the resources they require. But if the community isn’t happy with the help they provide (or aren’t providing, in the case of people who decide not to help) they are not entitled. As well, we’re not just talking about heavy labour, we’re talking about anything that contributes to society. Be that construction, farming, desk work, craftsfolkship, art, etc. Literally, anything that the community is bettered by, so not all that many people would be “starved” by this system, unless they’re flat out refusing to contribute… in which case, at least in my opinion, that’s not a bad thing. not great, but also not bad.

Mind you, as well, the disabled are entirely exterior to this. Those who are unable to contribute because of something innate to their body or their mind are inherently entitled to the resources they need - resources that would be eaten away at by the lazy person who refused to work.

We should also mention; “laziness” doesn’t really exist. What does exist is exhaustion and an unwillingness to do difficult labour. But humans want to help their communities, it’s part of what makes communal animals what they are. If we’re in a communist society, then “laziness” would be - at the very least - nearly eradicated, which makes everything above this sentence void. The main thing that makes people “lazy” under capitalism is the exhaustion of living under capitalism. so, to put it simply, get rid of capitalism and you get rid of one of the bigger contributors to “laziness”.

This is the difference between equality and equity, as some would say.

(also, small note, “isn’t it a little crazy” is ableist. please don’t do that, find something else to say.)

I think Pancake’s answer up there is more accurate.

Everyone, even the loafers, get the necessities to survive (Marx’s talk of from each according to their need and to each according to need isn’t necessarily symmetrical). Everyone should give what they can and everyone should get what they need not because they do they get.

Further, it’s likely given the current state of communism globally that there would remain a controlled and regulated market that would allow for everyone getting their stat-issued food ration (even if they aren’t doing anything) but there would be reward of variety or perhaps quality (think steak instead of ground beef) if you contribute to society and have enough surplus to spend.

Maybe I am not super intelligent, but wouldn’t it be crazy to allow entitled people to be served for doing nothing? Which is what tends to happen with Capitalism. Just my two cents.