The context is that there is enough wealth in most western countries that not everyone must work to survive. Working should be for having access to more things that just surviving, and not everyone should be required to work all the time just to survive.

Basic needs are basic, like food, shelter, and healthcare. If everyone had access to those basic things they would be free even if they need to work to attain more.

Surely there isn't an economic system in which people don't work for a top 1%, but for everyone, you could say a communal, or a social, economic system...

The alternative is all the wealth and resources hoarded by top 1% are shared among people so that everyone has access to basic stuff like food, shelter and healthcare regardless of whether they're able to work.

Which isn't to say this would be easy to achieve, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

We live in an economically connected world. An argument can be made that they're forced to subsistence farm in a backbreaking and cruel way due to the natural resources of their country extracted by oligarchs that don't even live in Africa.

Wherever poverty exists, rich people are involved by their sheer unwillness to share enough to meet everyone's basic needs.

Is every person in those communities required to work to eat and have shelter, or does the community take care of those that are unable to contribute labor due to health conditions/old age?

I can imagine by some stretch you can still blame the rich, maybe without the rich people they'd have more access to better farmland, cheap water, etc.

Rich people are very likely at fault, too, given that shitty countries are handy for cheap labour and materials, like coltan...