That's a pretty interesting thing to say, and I would like to share why I disagree.

I would like to share some basic rebuttals to that idea. Karl Marx, the father of the ideology of using socialism as a means to communism, operated under the pretense that all hierarchy is created through capitalism. He used this to create his well known theory that, if there was equal distribution of goods and labor, then there will be equal outcome for every persons.
"For each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This theory is easily debunked at its core by the basic truth that dominance hierarchy exists throughout nature, and embedded in the Human social construct at its very core. Look at our primate cousins, for example. They form a dominance hierarchy based on physical characteristics, such as strength, stamina, as well as more complex social structures which can be seen through mutual grooming. Alpha primates very frequently take part in mutual grooming. As I am sure you know, those at the top of the hierarchy procreate more than those at the bottom, and therefore their genes have a much higher likelyhood of being passed on to the next generation. It is very Darwinian in nature, as a matter of fact. There is a constant struggle to move to the top of the hierarchy, and those that are able to (because they have superior genes, or because they are better socially adjusted, see mutual grooming) pass their genes on to the next generation. Those that can't move to the top usually do not pass on their genes. This is how a species progresses.

This philosophy remains true with humans, but it becomes way way more complicated. This is because humans have created a way more complex social structure than primates have. The extension I will call "admiration." When humans see a trait they like, they attempt to emulate it. This is admiration. If I admire the way that one person socially interacts, and I see that they get good results from it, I will do the same in an attempt to reap the same rewards. Those with the best traits, and the most admirable features will go to the top of the social hierarchy and those that don't will sink to the bottom. In humans, whether you like it or not, it is very well documented that females rarely procreate with those of lower social status then them, it is almost always on the same level or up. Because of this, those in human society with the best characteristics procreate the most and have the most children, which usually carry on the same traits, and sometimes improve upon them. Now, this creates another really interesting phenomenon that you can see in almost every civilization on earth, and that is religion. The creation of "perfect" deities with the collection of the most desirable traits. This is super super important. "Alpha" men, those at the top of the hierarchy can change or die, in early human civilization that tended to happen really really quickly. That made it really hard to keep track of the most desirable traits that one should aspire to have. But with the creation of an "objectively" perfect deity, you can have a well documented set of values and characteristics to base a hierarchy on. This also creates the foundation that society can function on, a seemingly objective set of rules that everyone can understand so that more important things can be done. I know if I live in a society where religious values dictate that you can't go around killing and eating people and still move to the top of a social hierarchy, there is a much lower risk of me getting stabbed on the street, and that gives me the opportunity to persue things like free enterprise, self actualization, and scientific study, where otherwise I would be constantly concerned about my safety (please see Maslows hierarchy of needs.) Nietzsche famously coined the phrase "God is dead, and we have killed him." I am sure you have heard about this. Nietzsche's philosophy and prediction is that a if a society that kills god, or the idea of an objective set of moral values and good traits, will inevitably end up where there is no motivation to improve, and will devolve and collapse. See the concepts of Nihilism. It is also good to keep in mind that Marxian ideology rejects the idea of hierarchical structure, and god.

Communism is not a system of government, but a system of social organisation. I think that it could be very reasonably argued that creating and enforcing a system of social organisation that opposes nature so blatantly could be considered evil, and very very bad for society.

I would be very interested to hear any rebuttals though!

Also, I lived in an ethnic Serbian area of Croatia during the collapse of Yugoslavia (I was young), and I was born to an ex-Soviet so AMA about that?

Sorry for my English!