Define socialist? Someone who advocates for or believes in public ownership of the means of production. Welfare or some kind of social safety net in a mixed or mostly capitalist society isn't "socialist". It is a social program, borrowed from the left end of the spectrum, for sure. But the economy is still market based capitalism. The context I chose to refer to was the context in which you said that people think Kamala Harris is a communist/socialist. So if that's true, then we're not talking about a few social safety nets introduced in a capitalist economy.
Kamala Harris is not going to do anything to fix homelessness, and neither is any Democrat in the running. They care far too much about victim-hood, virtue signaling, fake social justice and furthering their own political careers. They're in it to be part of the ruling class. They'll throw money at and pretend they've fixed it, and the money thrown will go to waste. It's a problem that's a bit more complicated than just throwing money at it.
There are a lot of factors in homelessness and it doesn't seem like people on the right have the will to address it and the people on the left just want to help the homeless be more homeless. They're ****ing crazy. The large cities on the west coast and east coast have a Democratic lock on government. Their homeless problem is out of control. **** in the street. Needles everywhere. Nah. Kamala Harris is NOT gonna make it any better. She'll make it worse, just like all the other democrats have done in the cities they rule. Republicans ignoring the problem is actually better than the Democrats' solutions. But it would be better not to ignore it and actually address the causes of homelessness. A good start might be to help the homeless NOT be homeless.
But let's address the bit about socialism vs capitalism. My home is socialist. Mostly. We share resources. And it essentially operates like "From each according to ability to each according to need". Babies and kids have a lot of limitations. They depend on adults. They're expected to do more as they grow more capable. Small communities can operate like that too. They often can make a better go of it by sharing their resources, like tribes. I mean the literal ones, not social in-groups.
Socialism doesn't scale well. Large societies are too diverse to make it work with human nature instead of against it. For socialism to work, the members really can't be as "individual" as you can in a capitalist society. It's all about the collective. Some cultures are more compatible with that than others, but even so, it's harder to do when you scale it up to a large society. Diversity in personalities, goals, opinions and whatnot, start to stray from the common good towards the individual. Larger scale socialist societies have to control that. That kinda makes them not very nice.
