I'm not really sure what this example means, but doesn't it seem inefficient to you that instead of just letting the person who needs the apple just pick they apple, a whole system of distribution and wages needs to be set up around it?
Assume that the receiver lives 100 miles away and the apples only grow in this area.
48.1 million Americans, so about 16% of Americans, live in "food insecure" households (ie they struggle to consistently have three full meals)
Well, I asked for deaths but that still works. Now show me that stats for Stalin.
Meanwhile, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted across the world each year, that could otherwise have provided for these families
How would communism solve this?
Nobody wants to work, plain and simple. However, if we all stop working, we die. That happens under any mode of production, not just socialism. That's why automation and technological innovation is key under socialism. Make menial tasks automated so no one has to perform them.
Automate everything so no one has to do work? I don't think anyone argues against that.
However, we do have the vast amounts of labour capital (ie there are a lot of workers) who can do these menial tasks. Nobody needs to make a career out of janitorial work or other some such trades, since we have enough people that these duties can be rotated among the populace. This ties into workers self management where duties can be rotated among employees every certain period (week, 2 weeks, month, year, etc.).
But that doesn't increase productivity. Only one job is being done.
Would you like to return to the middle ages? Where feudal lords owned everything?
Sorry if this example is becoming tired, but it's the best example to explain how once society has transferred to Socialism, there is essentially no going back. Just like how there is no going back to Feudalism once society has transferred to Capitalism.
There were more systems than feudalism in place during the middle ages just like how capitalism and socialism exist at the same time today.
If everyone owns the land, we all have a stake in what happens to the land, like how it is effected. Is this not true of the environment as well? Despite who owns the land, under any mode of production, does the environment suddenly changes how it reacts to pollution? It does not, therefore, the more people have an actual stake in the land through common ownership, the more hardpressed we will be to ignore environmental issues.
You know what the bystander affect is right?
https://www.learningtogive.org/resources/native-american-culture-giving
And those are all voluntary