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
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?