This but unironically. Communism arguably has pretty good "moral principles" behind it. I mean, how could you be against everyone being equal and laborers owning the means of production rather some fatcat capitalist who doesn't even work? However, we all know empirically how that worked out.
That argument collapses pretty quickly. Attempts to build Communist nations failed so completely from the start that all involved high levels of confiscation of property and forced employment and work rules which closely resemble slavery.
I don't think "everyone being equal" was ever a stated or practiced goal in communism. Even if the means of production was owned by laborers (the state), all aspects of society is still ordered hierarchically in all real-life examples of communism. The Soviet Union, China, both had/have big businesses with company leaders, bosses, middle managers, and so on. Not to speak of the military forces, academia, or the arts. If anything, the communist nations had meritocracy instead of equality. At least in how claimed their nations were organized, and many times in practice as well.
I suspect communism and socialism is usually sold with claims about how equal everyone are and how much more equal everyone will be. But then when it is actually implemented... a lot depends on how high your friends are in the government and how high your rank is! And of course 'the supreme leader" and those closest and most loyal to him cannot be expected to live like the masses now?