Mr. Liebeler.

You were going to mention specific areas of political discussion that you had with him.

Mr. Paine.

One other thing happened in this first half hour, the most fruitful half hour I had ever had with him. He had mentioned his employer. I probably asked him why did he leave this country to go to the Soviet Union, and his supreme theme in this regard is the exploitation of man by man, by which he means one man making a profit out of another man's labor, which is the normal employment situation in this country and to which he found--took, felt great resentment.

He was aware that his employer made he made more money for his employer than he was paid and specifically he mentioned how his employer of the engraving company goods and chattels that he had, that Oswald didn't have, and with some specific resentment toward this employer, and I thought privately to myself that this resentment must show through if he ever meets his employer, it must sort of show through and that his employer wouldn't find that man very attractive. So this was his guiding theme.
The reason it appears that this country, the system in this country had to go, had to be changed, was because of this supreme immoral way of managing affairs here, the exploitation of man by man which occurs in this country.
We discussed about it occurring in the Soviet Union, the taxation of a man's labor, it occurs there also, and it appeared that only, he seemed to agree or sometimes I had to feed him, this conversation now is a later one, when we were talking about the specifics of exploitation of man by man, he agreed that the only difference was that in the Soviet Union it is a choice which is impersonal.
The person who decides the man's wages and labor does not stand to gain by it whereas in this country the man who decides stands to gain by it.

Mr. Dulles.

The man who decides what, to employ the other man?

Mr. Paine.

No; what wage to pay him.

Mr. Dulles.

What wage to pay him?

Mr. Paine.

Or what his return shall be. So that was the only--the most important, by far economic and political almost, let's call it economic doctrine he held.

Mr. Liebeler.

Did he translate that economic doctrine to specific policies that he thought should be adopted or specific changes that should be made in the structure of this country?

Mr. Paine.

I had never, to my satisfaction, uncovered an area of progressive change that he would advocate. I asked him how did he think this change was going to come about, and he never answered that.
And it seemed to me he was critical of almost everything that occurs in this country. So that he did not--I did not come to--did not know of anything in which he could see a progressive evolutionary change or policies that could be pushed in order to promote his ideals.

Representative Ford.

Did he react academically, intellectually, violently or in what way did he express these views?

Mr. Paine.

Well, he was quite dogmatic. First he wanted to put me in a category. In one of the later talks--when we first met he talked very freely and then I think as we made, in later conversations, I had to do more and more of it--make more and more effort to draw something out of him. In his later conversations, Ruth found him so bothersome.

Mr. Dulles.

What was that word?

Mr. Paine.

Bothersome, that she couldn't join the conversations. He would get too angry or too--

Representative Ford.

He resented the probing or the questioning?

Mr. Paine.

No; he did not really resent the probing. For instance, take this issue of the exploitation of man by man. When we had boiled it down to this rather fine difference or technical difference that one was done by an impersonal body and one was done personal.

Mr. Dulles.

The Soviet being the first and the American being the second?

Mr. Paine.

That is correct. That being then the crux of the matter and the reason this is the matter to be changed, if we were to follow the logic of the discussion, many arguments seemed to approach at that kind of a point where it