Although socialism is a great ideal on an ideological basis, the reality of the situation is that people due to human nature have goals and needs which they have to fulfill, which can lead to corruption. In addition to this, a board of members with altering ideals could lead to indecision but if you can get people to think selflessly in the board of elected individuals then yes, a socialist government would be better than a modern democracy
I believe a board of elected individuals from military, governmental and civilian placements would be better than just one prime minister/ president that makes sole decisions.
This would mean the board would have to come to a rounded decision instead of one made by one person alone.
The people would be elected in via national votes, and could consist of a few, to a larger board of individuals.
Wouldn't that be real democracy?
The different points of view would allow a realistic opinion to be raised, as it's a common understanding that modern government officials are out of touch with what life is like for people living in a normal society.
A socialist government would seek to own all if not most large corporations and businesses, to run them in a less profit fed way. This would eliminate forms of corruption in large corporations, and would make it fairer. Capitalist corporations are profit led to the extent where they are damaging to people, and to the fact the money generated is only going to select people, where it could be better spent on the wellbeing of a nation.
This wouldn't be a communist state, and it wouldn't be extremism. Just an alternative that I think could be better for nation it is within.
Your idea sounds very familiar. An elite class of people who have control over everything in the country? Sounds very similar to China/North Korea/Stalinist Russia. It is clear to see this model would be very open to corruption and abuse of power.
Socialism has been tried and has failed, time and time again.
Socialism involves the government taking over many aspects of the economy. If the government can have control over the economy, then why can't it move on to take more control over its "rebellious" citizens? Communism is a form of Socialism where the government takes complete control over the economy, and it's no coincidence that communist countries like China and North Korea that have the strongest controlled economies have also taken away the most individual autonomy.
I say no because of the the failure of Socialism to it's liberalized brother Social Democracy. And I also say no because essentially what you are implying is a quasi-Representative Democracy. Or a Politburo controlled by one party. Even then, if enacted on countries with vast diverse populations such as China which it is, strict military order would be enacted to quell all dissidents. Also lastly how would the "Politburo" make decisions? Majority Rules?