"What you're describing is called "communism". It's been tried several times, but the problem with that system is that it requires profound centralization of power and a massive bureaucracy. Turns out when you put those two things together, the people you ask to run the system will abuse their power to enrich themselves obscenely, to the detriment of everybody else. Usually it's the representatives of the government who hold all that power, and are the ones who become corrupt. You get narcissism and cronyism in your government officials, and usually the ruling group will excise anyone competent enough to be a potential threat, resulting in absurd levels of systemic ineptitude.
Though, nobody's ever attempted communism with a direct democracy, which I figure would have the best shot at actually working. A direct democracy would divide power among all the members of the society, so nobody would have enough power to take advantage, theoretically. Then again, that would have it's own issues, like populism and political parties, so I'm not convinced it would work any better.
The American Amish have a fairly successful collectivist system, but it's only been done on small scales and in ethnically uniform groups, so I don't know how it'd work world-wide."
"it seems avarice is a fatal flaw of your sociopolitical systems, human."
"Yeah, it seems that way..."