molotov
why don't we have a swiss socialism?
summary: a historical sketch of why switzerland never produced homegrown socialist theory, despite being central to its development elsewhere.
Socialism and communism have been a defining aspect of modern history, causing revolutions and social upheaval that was never seen before. Countries rose and fell, ideologies split and fused. But one thing was clear: class consciousness spread throughout the world — the USSR, Vietnam, DPRK, Cuba, and others. They all recognised the threat that capitalism could be.
In Switzerland, socialism and communism have had a different history. Switzerland never had the resources nor world influence to have any inherent wealth. Geneva had its banks, Zurich was industrial, and we were medieval in our institutions. It took a civil war for us to find our footing and develop ourselves. We industrialised and developed infrastructure, producing our own share of wealth inequality. But not only that, we assumed a role of being a political refuge to 19th century socialists and liberals, letting them develop theory here and study at our universities.
Zurich, Geneva, and Basel became hotbeds of avant-garde culture, new politics and trends. Lenin spent some of his exile and work in Zurich. Swiss communists helped coordinate and organise his return to Tsarist Russia.
So it's clear that Switzerland played an instrumental role in the foundations of 19th and early 20th century socialism. But WW2 changed Switzerland's geo-strategic position and its economy. We assumed a role of being the bankers for the capitalists, the criminals, and the imperialists. We became manufacturers of luxury products and pharmaceuticals. We produced highly technical and precise machinery, becoming known for our quality. Most importantly: we became ideologically and strategically aligned with the western imperialists.
This all did not happen without resistance, of course. Capitalism in Switzerland had hiccups, just like it did everywhere. Workers' movements sprung up, socialist parties were founded, workers founded unions in solidarity with each other. It culminated in 1918 with a nationwide general strike. The parties and unions continued to grow in support and membership, while internally they were slowly drifting apart. The SP (former Socialist Party, currently Social-Democrat Party) slowly withdrew from some of the more radical class warfare aspects of socialism and communism, in the interest of pursuing alliances with the political centre. Some of the more left-wing members of the SP banded with the communists, but the 1937 Friedensabkommen resulted in a class compromise that essentially negated any future attempts at a major strike or class warfare.
Only in 1991, when 500,000 Swiss women went on strike nationwide, did Switzerland see its biggest strike since 1918. But this was a single-issue strike, focused on equal pay and equal rights for women, and had no clear evidence of being class-based like the 1918 general strike. In 2008, railworkers in Bellinzona went on strike, and in 2024 the construction workers did too. But both of these had none of the impact that 1918 had.
During WW2, left- and right-wing extremist parties were banned in the government's interest of stability. In 1944, the communists founded the PdA, continuing the KPS' legacy. They continued to spend the 20th century fighting for workers' rights and against capitalism's wrongs, but they slowly lost public support, for their own reasons and combined with the cold war tensions.
In 1991, the USSR collapsed, taking most major communist and non-social democratic aligned parties out of the equation. Liberalism won the ideological battle of the 20th century, leaving us with neoliberalism.
This leaves us with today.
Switzerland is a unique country with a unique cultural mixture and unique economic situation. We are a semi-direct democracy that profits off the wealth of the West, while juggling 4 different national identities and cultures, with a wealth of political opinions and engagement. Right-wing, libertarian, green, social democrat, Christian, and Protestant parties represent the people. No other nation votes as often as we do.
We are uniquely reliant on the global capitalist orientation of the economy like no other. Being primarily a country of service industry (79%~), with some manufacturing (20%~) and agriculture (0.9%~), we clearly rely on the wealth of others, for we ourselves don't inherently produce enough materially to justify our current wealth.
This structure and functioning of the political economy isn't something that Marx, Lenin, or Luxemburg theorised for. The material conditions they existed and worked in were never the same as in Switzerland. No significant industrial proletariat, a working class that is materially wealthy enough to suppress any radicalism, a political system that acts as a radicalism release valve, and an economy that relies on the economies that oppress and extract from others — these conditions warrant a homegrown socialist theory, not an imported one.
In every other nation with socialist movements, especially those that were successful — the USSR, Vietnam, the PRC — they recognised that the material conditions of their countries were not as Marx described. The general themes that Marx's critique of capitalism reveals don't always apply as much as they should. The world is unique, and so there will never be a one-size-fits-all.
We have been a home for socialists previously, to develop theory and educate themselves. We sheltered Lenin but never produced him.
Why haven't we?
In Switzerland, socialism and communism have had a different history. Switzerland never had the resources nor world influence to have any inherent wealth. Geneva had its banks, Zurich was industrial, and we were medieval in our institutions. It took a civil war for us to find our footing and develop ourselves. We industrialised and developed infrastructure, producing our own share of wealth inequality. But not only that, we assumed a role of being a political refuge to 19th century socialists and liberals, letting them develop theory here and study at our universities.
Zurich, Geneva, and Basel became hotbeds of avant-garde culture, new politics and trends. Lenin spent some of his exile and work in Zurich. Swiss communists helped coordinate and organise his return to Tsarist Russia.
So it's clear that Switzerland played an instrumental role in the foundations of 19th and early 20th century socialism. But WW2 changed Switzerland's geo-strategic position and its economy. We assumed a role of being the bankers for the capitalists, the criminals, and the imperialists. We became manufacturers of luxury products and pharmaceuticals. We produced highly technical and precise machinery, becoming known for our quality. Most importantly: we became ideologically and strategically aligned with the western imperialists.
This all did not happen without resistance, of course. Capitalism in Switzerland had hiccups, just like it did everywhere. Workers' movements sprung up, socialist parties were founded, workers founded unions in solidarity with each other. It culminated in 1918 with a nationwide general strike. The parties and unions continued to grow in support and membership, while internally they were slowly drifting apart. The SP (former Socialist Party, currently Social-Democrat Party) slowly withdrew from some of the more radical class warfare aspects of socialism and communism, in the interest of pursuing alliances with the political centre. Some of the more left-wing members of the SP banded with the communists, but the 1937 Friedensabkommen resulted in a class compromise that essentially negated any future attempts at a major strike or class warfare.
Only in 1991, when 500,000 Swiss women went on strike nationwide, did Switzerland see its biggest strike since 1918. But this was a single-issue strike, focused on equal pay and equal rights for women, and had no clear evidence of being class-based like the 1918 general strike. In 2008, railworkers in Bellinzona went on strike, and in 2024 the construction workers did too. But both of these had none of the impact that 1918 had.
During WW2, left- and right-wing extremist parties were banned in the government's interest of stability. In 1944, the communists founded the PdA, continuing the KPS' legacy. They continued to spend the 20th century fighting for workers' rights and against capitalism's wrongs, but they slowly lost public support, for their own reasons and combined with the cold war tensions.
In 1991, the USSR collapsed, taking most major communist and non-social democratic aligned parties out of the equation. Liberalism won the ideological battle of the 20th century, leaving us with neoliberalism.
This leaves us with today.
Switzerland is a unique country with a unique cultural mixture and unique economic situation. We are a semi-direct democracy that profits off the wealth of the West, while juggling 4 different national identities and cultures, with a wealth of political opinions and engagement. Right-wing, libertarian, green, social democrat, Christian, and Protestant parties represent the people. No other nation votes as often as we do.
We are uniquely reliant on the global capitalist orientation of the economy like no other. Being primarily a country of service industry (79%~), with some manufacturing (20%~) and agriculture (0.9%~), we clearly rely on the wealth of others, for we ourselves don't inherently produce enough materially to justify our current wealth.
This structure and functioning of the political economy isn't something that Marx, Lenin, or Luxemburg theorised for. The material conditions they existed and worked in were never the same as in Switzerland. No significant industrial proletariat, a working class that is materially wealthy enough to suppress any radicalism, a political system that acts as a radicalism release valve, and an economy that relies on the economies that oppress and extract from others — these conditions warrant a homegrown socialist theory, not an imported one.
In every other nation with socialist movements, especially those that were successful — the USSR, Vietnam, the PRC — they recognised that the material conditions of their countries were not as Marx described. The general themes that Marx's critique of capitalism reveals don't always apply as much as they should. The world is unique, and so there will never be a one-size-fits-all.
We have been a home for socialists previously, to develop theory and educate themselves. We sheltered Lenin but never produced him.
Why haven't we?
↓ scroll for more
