Why wouldn't you consider the many experiments with communism in the 20th century to be attempts at eliminating wealth inequality? You could argue that they morphed into something different but the initial motivation based on hatred of rich people seems pretty clear cut. Not to argue that there wasn't also other motives at play.

Because they weren't?

This is like describing the freeing of the slaves in America as "attempts at eliminating wealth inequality" (and/or "hatred of rich people").

Yes, the people who owned slaves were generally wealthy. Yes, the slaves were not wealthy. Being given back legal ownership of themselves and their children could be seen as a kind of wealth transfer from rich to poor, but that wasn't the point of it.

Some historical context:

https://www.rbth.com/history/331117-how-abolishing-serfdom-l...

The entire experiment of socialism enforced on roughly half the worlds population in the 20th century would be the prime example.

Early soviet history had attempts to eliminate currency and other actions which invariably failed. The Soviet Union didn’t lack inequality but it was much more equal than tzarist Russia.

There are also many examples of failed communal ownership utopias at the local level. The outcome has largely been to move asset control to whoever has the greatest political clout in the community.