USSR was partially socialist, I'd rather not see full socialism
No, it was a planned economy. Socialism is control of the means of production by the workers. That can't be the case when a dictatorship owns everything.
But we work to earn food, not to earn air because air is abundant, food not so.... You want to force a human (society) to spend same effort and resources to get air (workers) as to get food (engineers)...
That's a terrible analogy. First of all, we have plenty of both engineers and workers. Second, I don't care about the interests of society as some amorphous single unit. I care about the interests of individuals. If the total economy is a bit smaller, that's fine, so long as people are better served.
You are going against nature with stuff like that
We've been going against nature since the first farmer realized they could force plants to grow. Nature is violent, brutal, and generally immoral. We should be going against nature.
Yay! Social parasites. A lot of social parasites.
So? Old people are parasites too. Should they just be left to die?
I'd rather see them dead. Yes, man has right to life, but if he chooses to not execute that right by working to earn his own food... Farewell.
Oh, well then. That's absolutely disgusting. The thing about morality is that you're required to be altruistic. If you only look after your own interests, you're a terrible person. We should try to maximize happiness for all people. And you know what that means? Supporting freeloaders. If you want to let people die so that you can be a little richer, I suggest you go back to the 19th century.
Problem #1
I'll never do unpleasant job (why, if I can choose more pleasant or stay unemployed? )
Problem #2
I'll definately not choose risky or hazardous job (again, why if no reward?)
Well, there are only so many other jobs available, so unless you can show that you're better suited for those than the current occupants, you're stuck with what's left, or nothing. I don't know about you, but most people like having luxuries.
Problem #3 I'll not spend time or effort improving my skills (Another why do it if I can meet requirements already?)
Because people are far happier when they feel like they're progressing in something.
Only and important are different things. Normal people have different conflicting motives, to not be a bastard is usually one of them. To do less work is another
Being an engineer is not easier than being a construction worker. Both require countless hours of your life sacrificed to constant exertion.
1) Engineer will design unsafe stuff... because he is lazy
If their only motivation is to reduce their workload, they could just quit. Designing unsafe things is a far less efficient way of getting time off. There's no equivalent for money: you can't quit and suddenly get rich, unless you're a CEO, which is an entirely different problem.
2) Lead scientist will fabricate results to imitate reaching minimum plan ( You know, Soviet Militia arrested people just to reach the plan. Oh yes, not a socialism... All attempts to create socialism are somehow, mysteriously, make wrong socialism)
And why would they do that? People become scientists because they're
interested in science. And citing the Soviet Union is ridiculous, because yes, it was absolutely not socialism. A dictatorship controlling a state capitalist economy and using secret police to suppress political dissent, targeting minorities, and supporting ultranationalism.. what does that sound like? Oh, right:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.
And there have been socialist societies that were actually, you know, socialist. Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War is probably the best example. The Paris Commune is another, though it was very short lived, as was the Ukraine during the early portions of the Russian Revolution. Then of course there are the areas under Zapatista control in southern Mexico and Kibbutzim, for more modern examples.
Finally, even if you're right and socialism is horribly inefficient, capitalism permits millions of deaths. That's absolutely unacceptable. Unless you have a better alternative, even bureaucratic nonsense strawman socialism is far, far better, even if it means that your first world comforts are going away. I doubt your concerns about efficiency and motivation would be very convincing to a starving somali child.
what's wrong with making unemployment ilegal? right now unemployment is fatal, and often unavoidable. if it was made a misdeameanor punished with reduced privileges depending on the duration of unemployment it would be a lot fairer
Because there simply aren't enough jobs for full employment to happen?
the northern european countries are partially socialist
Eh, not really. They're welfare capitalism, which, while a hell of a lot better than laissez-faire capitalism, is really only viable because those countries have access to cheap natural resources, both from their own territory, and because of horrible conditions elsewhere.