1. and 2. – no. The idea that "communism is where everyone has the same salary" is a misconception

The Earnings of Soviet Workers: Evidence from the Soviet Interview Project DOI:10.2307/1928147 . The abstract says education and experience are rewarded. "As a first approximation,one can say that the Soviets use market-clearing wages to allocate labor."

7. The USSR had two kinds of farms: sovkhoz were state owned where people earned wages, and kolkhoz were cooperatively owned. (In East Germany, these were called VEGs and LPGs respectively.) China collectivised farms under Mao and then decollectivised them later. Hungary and East Germany had their own things going on: including policies that you could hold a small amount (a few acres) privately. See The transition to socialism in China by Selden and Lippit as a source about collectivisation, or From Commune to Capitalism: How China's Peasants Lost Collective Farming and Gained Urban Poverty by Zhun Xu. There's also a couple of good books on agriculture in communist Hungary by Nigel Swain if we're talking about the whole Soviet Bloc.

I don't have much time, and there's a few books to write in response to all your questions tbh

just some thoughts from my readings. if anyone has corrections ill be happy to edit.

5. I would be wary of the idea of innovation for innovations sake. If you do want to point to things, I'd point to the USSR space program. There are also numerous nobel prize winners for specific scientific discoveries. Also the internet in the US was government funded. The basic idea of innovation in capitalist mode of production is that the risks of development are taken on by the public (taxes paid for research, eg. vaccines), but the technology and profits are appropriated by the capitalist class.

6. Depends when, but in later stages of the USSR you could make a small business. But to me the question is: what exactly do you want to pursue? If you have an idea how to improve a specific product you could petition to work at that specific department. Making new products would be under the jurisdiction of the relevant GOSPLAN department.

7. Essentially correct, except there were complex (and patchwork) systems in place for purchasing and distribution of produce.

8. There were penalties in place if you refused to work (fines, visits by authorities). You dont lose housing (you are always assigned one) or medical care (free) or payment for family (women worked in the USSR too + childcare was available), but you could get in serious trouble. The question here is also: why would you refuse to work? If you didn't like your workplace you could fill paperwork to be reassigned. You had vacation days etc. So a refusal like that would probably be seen as a sign of distress.

9. Not easy to answer in a paragraph, but the basic gist is that after Mao the CPC changed quite a bit and saw the introduction of foreign capital and market reforms as a necessity for progress. I think the current CPC position is that they are building up productive forces before moving on to the next stage of socialism.

4. If you are given an option of yes or no, and you'll be shot for saying no, you were never given an option. That's common sense.

5. Russia under the NEP (New Economic Policy) did have the idea of profit. See The Economic Essence of Profit and Profitability Under Socialism from 1969 (https://sci-hub.se/10.2753/PET1061-199112013) and The Role of Profit in a Socialist Economy from 1963 (https://sci-hub.se/10.2753/PET1061-1991051010)

\8. That's called 'social parasitism' and was a crime in the USSR. A slogan of Stalin's was "he who does not work, neither shall he eat". Again, this is based on the misconception that there weren't things like wages and profits, like everything comes free or something, which was not ever the case. The answer to "What happens to someone who doesn't work under socialism?" is a bit like "What happens to someone who doesn't work under capitalism?" – they won't have any money, and then how are they gonna pay for food and a place to live?