Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I think another thing that would lend some stability to what I am saying is that I think the tax bureau at one of the local Federal district courts in determining the taxability of the foundation itself actually I think handed down a ruling that the foundation was not entitled to a section 101 exemption because that particular provision actually called for the elimination of the capitalistic system. I think that was the wording used either by the bureau or the court and from that time on the trustees never actually, I can’t think of a single organization or a single group--and we had applications I know, I am trying to think of some of the organizations that existed over that period of time--I can’t recall any of them now who specifically asked for grants based on what they called theory of production for use rather than for profit. But I can’t think of a single instance where the trustees actually made---- Mr. TAVENNER. That was actually the system in use in the Soviet Union, was it not? Mr. O’CONNELL. I have never been in the Soviet Union and I am not---- Mr. TAVENNER. However, you know, that is true, don’t you? Mr. O’CONNELL. My information that I get from reading and so on is that there is a modification. I think if I state it correctly in the industrial field I think there is production for use rather than for profit, but as I understand the Soviets have now abandoned as far as particular foreign farm production is concerned---- Mr. TAVENNER. Was it not the purpose of the Communist Party in the United States at that time to foist upon this country just such a plan, namely, to establish a Communist system of production for use and not for profit? Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, wouldn’t be qualified to say, I wouldn’t be qualified to state whether or not that was their purpose or their program. As a matter of fact, the program of the Communist Party as I remember it before I came to Congress, while I was in Congress and after the program of the Communist Party in the United States was fluctuating--as a matter of fact, I think there was a removal of Browder because he was advocating--removal of Browder by the Communist Party leadership because he was advocating a companionship or partnership with capital and that capital and communism could exist and there could be as I understand it--that was the program of the Communist Party for a long time until he was removed, I can’t remember when. But I knew Bob Marshall those years--I think I can positively state that Bob Marshall was not a Communist and that the provisions in that will and certainly the people that were named as trustees in addition to the trade union trust as we called it, the Marshall Foundation Trust, there was a civil liberties trust of which I think Roger Baldwin was the head and I think everyone will agree he is decidedly anti-Communist.