I mean, that's false on its face. Plenty of folks don't work and don't starve.

My 8 year old isn't working, but somehow manages to not starve.

We absolutely could structure society to prevent starvation without forcing labor.

I think you're making the same point. While biology would require your 8-year-old to work to survive, the social structure of your family (followed by your broader social network and eventually the state) is such that that's not the case. Blaming society for hunger is similar to blaming charity for poverty. X is probably not the problem if the solution is more X.

My point is not that society is bad because people hunger, but rather that we should structure our society such that they don't. Society itself is emergent and has no moral character. It's our leaders and to some extent ourselves that are at fault, at least in democracies.

What on earth does that mean? That it's biologically impossible to give other people food?

That means that someone have to work to make the food that is given to other people. So get food, someone has to work. If there is no food, someone starves. Society can just redirect who is working and who is starving.

It's not a zero sum game. We have the technology to ensure nobody starves, and not doing so seems transparently evil.