would socialism or something similar work if....?

I know a lot of Christians are on this site and give all honor and respet to Jesus. From what I have learned, he was a member of the Essenes, a sect of Judaism which was - by our definition - communist.

That is, they lived communally, shared what they had and lived for the benefit of the others. They would prefer to give to others than to receive, and were selflessly devoted to their community and its preservation.

This definition of communism is at odds with what we have come to know as Soviet communism, which is really a form of fascism. That is, a group of rulers (usually self-appointed) insist the common man (the rabble, the proletariat) give up their salaries for 'the greater good.' But the leaders rip the common folk off. We have seen this. The Soviet hierarchy had dachas, servants, good food and wine, and other things unavailable to the working class. They were greedy.

The Essenes, however, were not. They lived by a spiritual rule, and had not interest in exploiting another person. Far from it! It would be sinful to do such things.

So, if you can eliminate greed, you might have a workable communist community, much as Jesus had and advocated.

that I know of, is that practiced by the Hutterian Brethren Church. They wouldn't call it socialism, just practicing Christianity as described in the book of Acts.
They're highly motivated Christians living with close kinfolk in communities of no more than maybe 120 people. They've done this for several hundred years isolating themselves from outsiders. It works for them.
Doing this at a governmental level doesn't work well for ordinary folks. The reason it has existed is because it works very well for the elite in charge. Maintaining control is easier than in a freewheeling society.
Von Mises in the 1920's showed why the Soviet Union would not and could not work for the people as a whole because of the impossibility of economic calculation.
The more socialism in an economy, the less prosperous it becomes.

And here's why.

People are generally rational about things. They will do things that add to their utility. This could be a whole range of things- buying TV's, sitting on the computer all day, working for a cause, seeing the smiles on people's faces after they help them through a difficult situation, etc.

Rational people are constantly, if unknowingly, performing a cost-benefit analysis in their heads. Will I get enough pleasure out of watching this TV that it is worth my time? Maybe not, I would rather mow my lawn and reap the benefits of a tidy yard instead.

Now, how much utility would a rational person get from paying attention to their politicians, reading all the bills before Congress, going to speak with their representatives about important issues? Probably not much. That's because one person can't expect to get much utility out of that, and therefore people do not waste their time learning about politics.

Contrast this with buying a car. People get a LOT of information about a car before they buy it. Why? Because it all pays off- they reap the benefits of doing all that research and work.

But that doesn't work in politics. I as a citizen has no chance of affecting, say, the outcome of whether a bill will be passed or not. So I use up all my energy, and unlike doing research for buying a car, I do all this work and get nothing in return.

In short, people are RATIONALLY IGNORANT about politics.

But not all people.

Some people know a LOT about what's going on. Let's take an example- the CEO of a giant agricultural company. The CEO can expect to gain A LOT from agricultural subsidies if he can get them passed. So he spends his time, his money, his effort, into lobbying congress to get it passed. He puts all this effort in because he can expect to reap the rewards of his work and add to his utility.

Now lets take the random guy on the street. How much do farm subsidies cost him? Comparatively very little. Why bother learning about them/protesting them? Even if he succeeds with his cause, he's saving a couple bucks here and there. But not the agricultural lobby- they stand to get BIG BUCKS from the government, and then invest accordingly.

It is this problem of rational ignorance among the population combined with the concentrated benefits toward lobbyists that makes the system itself less than optimal. Making term limits/ doing a lot of grassroots work may help on the margin

But any time you have concentrated benefits for the few, and spread out costs for the rest, people will act rationally. Those that can get those concentrated benefits do everything they can to get them, and the masses that lose a little bit here and there just don't even bother getting involved.

EDIT: Just to make it clearer how this relates to your question, the idea that the government can ever exist in a way that doesn't favor the few is probably wrong, precisely because of the issue of rational ignorance of the masses.