Because there was such a popular demand for some change in the economic situation to assure continued production and a cooperative effort, many people tried to translate an ideal of a cooperative commonwealth into some form of legislative effort. This resulted in many conferences and the calling in of legal talent to try to draft a measure which would be legal and which would satisfy the ambitions of the people to have the so-called dream of a cooperative commonwealth organization. Mr. TAVENNER. Describe in a practical sense what production-for-use meant? Mr. DENNETT. I wish I could satisfy you completely on that point because that is one of the problems we ran into in trying to draw up this initiative measure. We could never satisfy ourselves that we had it satisfactorily organized. However, the staff who worked on it worked long and hard and finally produced a measure which was known as the production-for-use initiative. It was ready for presentation to that convention. However, some of us in the Communist Party, while we agreed that such a measure was a good propaganda weapon and felt that it was an excellent means of popularizing the ideas which we understood and claimed were the basis of the operation of the economy in the Soviet Union, we were startled when we read the document and found that it sounded a little bit more like the Fascist corporate state that the Italian leader Mussolini had established. We became so alarmed about it, and were so perplexed that we asked a very world-famous person, who happened to be a guest of the convention, what this person thought about it. The person to whom I refer is Anna Louise Strong, who had just come from the Soviet Union, extended greetings to us, to the convention, and otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her travels, and won wide acclaim for that effort. Mr. TAVENNER. Did she, on the floor of the convention, address herself to the problem of production-for-use? Mr. DENNETT. She did not. Not at that moment. She spoke only in general terms about it, referring to it in a complimentary way and hoping for success. But at that moment she did not know very much about what was in that document. However, we felt that she, coming from the Soviet Union with fresh knowledge, might know quite a lot about it and might be able to assist us in revising the document so that it would be possible to satisfy us that it was, in fact, a step in the direction of a cooperative commonwealth. So she consented very graciously to take the document and work on it overnight. She did exactly that. And we read it the next morning, and, much to our surprise, she had moved the emphasis in the control even more in the direction of top control and less in the direction of allowing the members or the organizations to have anything to say about it, which was just the reverse of the trend that we had hoped for.