Less than a thousandth of the soviet population was homelessness (by the 1980s), contrast that with Austria, a capitalist nation heroised for its "public housing", has nearly double that (from 2016). The USSR was far, far better trying to solve homelessness than the pathetic attempts made by capitalist countries.

One - homeless was a crime in the USSR. So, you're making the argument they ended homeless by putting them in jail? I guess that's a wonderful argument. Housing quality was also terrible compared to the West.

"The upper classes live in or near the city centers where transportation and shopping is readily available ,and the lower classes live on the outskirts of major cities where urban ammenities are few . Soviet citizens spend very little o nhousing compared to Westerners as rents are heavily subsidized by the government . Unfortunately, quality housing in the Soviet Union is available to only a small portion of the population."

Two - Austria has a lower homeless rate than "socialist China" and even then, you're exaggerating - homeless is not a big deal. It impacts such a small portion of the population, and its mostly temporary, as these people eventually find jobs and housing. Its not a big deal.

Never said there wasn't and it isn't relevant to this discussion.

It is - because the claim made was that USSR "abolished homelessness" when it didn't. Socialism didn't solve homelessness. You can't make the argument housing in the Soviet Union was better when one it was of poor quality, it openly happened because they made homelessness a crime, and threw people in jail for it, and leave out the fact the Soviet Union collapsed - showing that system wasn't even sustainable or realistic in the first place.

The only reason why the Soviet Union could do as much it could because it had to constantly borrow US loans, and allow businesses like Pepsi and Mac Donalds to pay the bills. But, the fact that you're calling the Soviet Union "socialist" also kinda shows your poor understanding of Marxism.