861.50/4–2949: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Kohler) to the Secretary of State
1093. My immediately following telegram summarizes Varga’s article published “Questions Economics” in which he recants his previously-held stand on many important points re postwar economic situation capitalist countries and acknowledges correctness all criticism directed against him.1 While abject tone customary such statements notably absent and discussion certain points, such as improbability war between imperialist states, “timing” post-war crisis in USA, is lacking, apparent Varga intends article be complete admission all “errors” and in addition takes upon himself responsibility for mistakes his associates in Institute he formerly headed.
In light numerous possibilities behind Varga affair, Embassy reluctant this juncture to conjecture significance Varga confession. We feel it would be unwise accept published self-criticism as proof that Kremlin has come to any new or definitive decision regarding prospects for stabilization capitalist economy in West or advancement or postponement “inevitable” capitalist crisis. Likewise in absence other evidence either pro or con, we still believe unlikely any connection with Voznesensky ouster (reEmbtel 783, March 29).2
Varga’s recantation bears out analysis Embassy’s A–267, March 15 concluding Varga’s heresies so fundamental as to make impossible his re-emergence as top economic theorist without full confession of errors. However, regeneration of heretics is traditionally long and detailed process and it remains to be seen whether this is first step on road to complete restoration or prelude to obscurity.
- Telegram 1094 reported the receipt on April 28 of issue No. 3 of Questions of Economies which contained a 10–page article by Varga wherein he acknowledged the correctness of the criticizms for the “anti-Marxist” viewpoints expressed in his book. He claimed that the “principal error lay in faulty methodology used in book, i.e., attempting divide economics and politics. This un-Marxian approach naturally led to false conclusions of reformist nature, essential correctness facts themselves.” He regretted the prolonged delay in admitting the errors, and declared that he would not write the second volume as he had planned to do, although “an independent work on postwar problems imperialism without reformist mistakes ‘should be written.’”(861.50/4–2949) The text of the article “Against a Reformist Trend in Works on Imperialism” was sent in translation in despatch No. 286 from Moscow on May 17; not printed. (861.50/5–1749)↩
- Not printed.↩