Reich was clearly influenced by the liberal policy of the Soviet Union toward
sexual issues. He had read much about what was going on in the “first socialist society.”
Then, in the summer of 1929, he and Annie visited Russia for a few weeks, where Reich
gave some lectures. He came back more convinced than ever that sexual misery and eco-
nomic exploitation were inextricably linked and that a solution to the sexual question
could not take place without a social revolution. His trip also convinced him that certain
measures then being taken in the Soviet Union—simple divorce, legalized abortion,
attempts to break down the economic dependence of women, and some sexually permis-
sive “children’s collectives” (especially the one run by the psychoanalytically oriented
educator Vera Schmidt)—were only possible in a Communist society. He noted the signs
indicating that by 1929 the Soviet Union was already beginning to retreat from this kind
of revolutionary policy, although formal reactionary measures would not fully emerge
until the 1930s.
Even more important was the influence of Marx on Reich’s thinking. From
Freud, Reich had received the beginnings of a truly dynamic psychology of individual
development within one particular form of family life—the nuclear, patriarchal family.
For Marx, family form was itself dependent upon socioeconomic conditions, which were
in a process ofcontinuous change based on the class struggle. Marx and Engels at times
had spoken of the “abolition of the family” under communism, but they had no clear
sexual theory. Still, their prediction of “unalienated” Communist men and women fulfill-
ing all their potentialities without economic or sexist exploitation was undoubtedly an
important influence on Reich’s own social vision.
I would like to note here that my method of presenting different aspects of
Reich’s work in separate chapters has the disadvantage of obscuring just how much Reich
was involved with at any given time. Thus, from 1927 until 1934, Reich was pursuing his
character-analytic studies with even greater vigor than in preceding years (Chapter 14).
He also devoted considerable time and energy to his practical sex-politics (this chapter
and Chapter 13). Finally, he was making a major conceptual effort to integrate Freud and
Marx,to bring social theory to Freud’s work on the individual and a dynamic psycholo-
gy to Marxist theory and practice^27. In recalling her association with Reich, Grete
Bibring shook her head and said that Reich’s evening technical seminar would often last
until one in the morning. Frequently she was tired and would have liked to stop earlier,
“but no work was too much for Willy.”
Reich was more original in his clear-cut affirmation of adolescent and child gen-
itality. However, what really distinguished his position was not the advocacy of one or
another specific viewpoint:it was the way he formulated a syndrome of concepts. In this
sense, Reich’s contribution in the social field was similar to his clinical contribution. In
his character-analytic work he wove together existing concepts such as latent negative
transference, defensive character traits, nonverbal communication, and “actual neuroses.”
These linkages ofexisting clinical concepts were made in the service of a new therapeu-
tic goal—the establishment of orgastic potency.
140 Myron SharafFury On Earth