I am not confused and here is why: You are talking about socialism and communism (I have read the manifesto) as if the way that Engel and Marx envisioned it in a philosophical treatise is the way that it became manifest IRL. It isn't. Apologizing in advance for the lecture, but one begets the other.

Here, in this discussion of homelessness, when someone says that capitalism plays a roll, some attempt to rebut using ad hominem arguments: "If you don't like capitalism, you should go live in a socialist country and see how much you like it." I think its fair to say that what they are referring to is totalitarian states, think China. They conflate socialism as it exists in the real world with communism as it exists the real world, not in someone's idealized utopia (I mean, they entitled it a manifesto).

Social democracies in western Europe (and Canada and Japan) have embraced market economies in order to grow wealth, but then use socialist policies to distribute that wealth, through free health care, university education, child-care subsidies, pensions, etc. They are considered to be socialists due to these policies. Do they try to make a case for abolishing property? No. Are they opposed to using capitalism to create wealth? Again, no. I don't think anyone would say that the UK is communist with a straight face, or that the democratically elected government is at risk (if it is, it is not the kind of revolution that would be intended to result in a socialist state, but rather a fascist state with an autocratic ruler, just like the dream that exists here).

I'm not making a value judgement, just saying that conflating socialism with communism as we have come to know then in the real world is not a valid argument.

That said, there have been quite a few studies of homelessness and the causes are well known. Despite our government's faith in the ability of capitalism to solve our social problems, it has only exacerbated this problem (you can do your own research). To be more precise, capitalism did not cause homeless as others have pointed out. It may have made the problem worse, and it offers no solutions. These things can all be true at the same time.

I realize it is an oversimplification, but if one were to engage in the exercise of distilling the competing manifestos into single words, I challenge you to come up with more accurate words than competition and sharing, the fundamental mechanisms are work--again, capitalism appears best at creating wealth, so no value judgement from me.

Just like the causes of homelessness are well known, so are many of the remedies. Although not a Christian myself, I believe that if you embrace the dogma, you should do it completely and without hypocrisy. Jesus expelled the money changers from the temple. It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. Etc, etc. IMHO Jesus was just a dude, but a good one. Yes, if Jesus were around today, he would not be a capitalist; he would be a socialist, and one of color, and likely despised for advocating for the homeless. (I am aware that there are other new testament admonitions about rejecting welfare, etc. and in favor of personal responsibility, so please don't say that I am confused, I get it).

We have a long tradition in this country of embracing Christian ideals in talk, but then rejecting them in practice (read Robert Jones' book-himself a theologian-White Too Long). All I'm sayin' is that if people walked the walk, homelessness would still exist, but would be much less of a problem. All we need is the will.

I don't love your assumptions about me but the advice is certainly good. I never said the resources we contribute should prop up corporate interests, if i implied that I didn't mean to.