Keywords

While networked global capitalism is often aestheticized as smooth, continuous, and homogeneous, this system in fact requires asymmetry and discontinuity.

After Globalism Writing Group (2018, p. 25)

To revisit the original question that shaped this book, which explores how the Dutch paper industry has weathered politico-economic shifts and managed to survive since its establishment in the late sixteenth century, the historicization of the Dutch paper industry reveals that various types of networks have played a crucial role in sustaining its longevity across four distinct phases of capitalism. These networks have facilitated the industry’s ability to adapt to technological advancements, address and mitigate labor uprisings, navigate competitive dynamics by fostering collaboration within the industry and with the government, and advocate for the interests of key industrial stakeholders at both national and international levels. The historicization highlights the significance of the state’s involvement, labor struggles, cooperative and competitive structures, and technological innovations in safeguarding the survival of the Dutch paper industry. These factors, often examined in isolation, collectively play vital roles in maintaining the industry’s resilience.

Particularly during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the Dutch Republic was a major economic and trading power, the Dutch paper industry held significant importance both globally and nationally. The Dutch capital, Amsterdam, emerged as a major center for paper production and trade. The industry benefitted from the country’s access to waterways, including the River Amstel, which provided a convenient means of transporting raw materials and finished products. Dutch paper mills were concentrated in regions such as Gelderland and North Holland, where water-powered stamping mills proliferated and were known for their technological advancements. Aside from the ample water resources, the industry’s growth can also be attributed to the Dutch Republic's expansive colonial trade networks, which facilitated the supply of raw materials, such as rags, as well as actual investment capital. The presence of a skilled local workforce propelled the industry even further. By requiring tasks such as collecting rags, operating machinery, and distributing paper, the sector created job opportunities, thereby fostering local economies in the process.

As the book showcases, labor is an essential component of surplus value accumulation in capitalism and thus crucial for the survival of the Dutch paper industry. The historical analysis presented here demonstrates the inseparable connection between labor-capital relations and the industry's endurance throughout all phases of capitalism. These relations are primarily characterized by the continuous process of proletarianization. During Dutch capitalism (1580–1815), the mechanization of production brought significant changes to the organization and structure of labor. As workers increasingly relied on urban wage labor, they began to organize themselves in associations advocating against war, exploitative work conditions, and colonialism, as a means of pushing back against capital-owners. The industrialization of production during the era of Dutch monarchic liberalism (1815–1914) heightened this phenomenon, resulting in the assimilation of even the final remaining peasants in the Veluwe, who had previously participated in papermaking as a supplementary occupation, into the modern proletariat. Despite attempts by former peasants to regain independence through self-employment in straw-board cooperatives, these initiatives were ultimately undermined by the close networks among gentlemanly farmers, gentlemanly capitalists, and state authorities during the period of Dutch monarchic liberalism. These historical developments highlight the struggles and challenges faced by laborers and their attempts to resist exploitation, as well as the complex dynamics between different capitalist class fractions and the state throughout the various phases of capitalism.

With the end of World War II and the rebuilding of Europe through Marshall Plan aid, the criminalization of unionization was re-assessed during Fordism (1914–1980).Footnote 1 Even though unions were no longer criminalized, they nevertheless remained subordinated to the interests of the state and capital in the so-called pillarization of the Netherlands. In fact, strong employers’ associations (e.g., chamber of commerce) and the rise of Taylorist working procedures excelled the weakening of (communist) workers’ organizations further. During post-Fordism (1980 until now) labor-capital relations changed as new forms of precarity arose in first-wave industrialized countries, while harsh and exploitative labor was relocated to other geographical as well as demographic areas. In post-Fordism managers face the contradictory dynamics of being both internationally mobile representatives of big TNCs as well as locally placed managers, who, in the case of the Dutch paper industry, identify more with the respective industrial site than their transnational corporate employer. Subsequently, current forms of cooperation span ‘old-men networks’ within the Dutch paper industry, helping each other through more or less competition stiffening practices.

These competition-stiffening practices date back to early forms of cartel practices, which marked the Dutch paper industry’s survival for centuries. Early contracts of correspondence secured capital accumulation for the merchant-capitalist class fraction during Dutch capitalism (1580–1815). Such forms of cartel structures, also labeled fire insurances, were cooperative ventures between Zaansian paper makers. Completely independent of the paper production in the hinterland, Veluwian peasants had no interest in usury and practices of lending money, instead relying on local support structures between families. The early forms of cartel structures in the Zaanstreek slowly led to a stark concentration of the industry during Dutch monarchic liberalism (1815–1914). Soon, institutionalized cartel structures secured the industrialization of Zaansian papermaking, in turn bringing Veluwian paper makers to start cooperating in cartel structures themselves in order to maintain handmade Dutch paper traditions.

With the rising internationalization and concentration of the Dutch paper industry during Fordism (1945–1980), cartels became a dominant form of cooperation, decreasing competition to a minimum. Paper makers in the Netherlands tried to impede the decreasing importance of manufacturing industries in comparison to the rising importance of service industries for the Dutch economy by initiating intensified cooperation. In fact, cartels remained the most viable route to safeguard Dutch industrial growth more generally and the growth of the Dutch paper industry more specifically, making the Netherlands internationally known as a cartel heaven during Fordism.

During post-Fordism (1980 until now), the decreasing importance of manufacturing industries reaches its zenith in the process of deindustrialization. To soften the negative repercussions of rising deindustrialization and to put a stop to the moving of production capacities to newly industrialized countries, Dutch authorities promote the competition regime as the only way to keep economic growth attainable and fully transnationalized industries located within the national borders. With the full-blown arrival of the post-Fordist competition regime in the Netherlands, namely with the establishment of the Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (NMa, The Dutch Competition Authority), new forms of cooperation between companies as well as between public and private sectors became fundamental. These manifest in the contradictory dynamics of demanding specific forms of cooperation, i.e., networks aimed at innovation, and disdaining other forms of cooperation, i.e., cartel structures. As a result of foremost targeting R&D cooperation, industry-specific knowledge, and innovation hubs sprouted, such as the Kenniscentrum Papier en Karton (KCPK, Paper and Board Knowledge Centre). With the goal to foster cooperation, the KCPK established local, regional, and national level innovation projects in order to strengthen the industry’s competitiveness on the global level. Therefore, a focus on national identity of Dutch papermaking became pivotal, propagating R&D cooperation among agents of national manufacturing industries. Partially funded by (supra-) national institutions, organizations like the KCPK, itself a daughter organization of the Koninklijke Vereniging van Nederlandse Papier- en Kartonfabrieken (VNP—The Royal Association of Dutch Paper and Board Mills), aim to increase the attractiveness for foreign direct investment to stay located within the Netherlands. In case of the Dutch paper industry, this entails the promotion of cooperation to increase technological innovation and thus keep Dutch paper manufacturing businesses profitable investment outlets.

Also technological advancements mattered substantially to the survival of the Dutch paper industry. In fact, the early international fame of Dutch papermaking was based on its famous invention, the Hollander beater. Only possible through financial cooperative structures this invention changed the tide between the now mechanized production of paper in the Zaanstreek and the continuation of handmade paper production in the Veluwe during Dutch capitalism (1580–1815). Cost-intensive innovations like the Hollander beater also determined the second shift in the history of (Dutch) papermaking. The comparably late implementation of the steam-run paper machine in the Netherlands during Dutch monarchic liberalism (1815–1914) once again reshaped the landscape of Dutch paper production, albeit to its detriment. Compared to its foreign competitors, Dutch papermaking remained small-scale. Only with strong state support did the two biggest players of the industry (KNP and van Gelder Zonen) manage to catch up with foreign developments, allowing for the production of ‘endless’ paper and the use of innovative, cheaply available raw material for board production, such as straw. By 1890, handmade paper production using cloth and based on the traditional hamerbak had completely stopped.

As a matter of fact, the following phase of Fordism (1945–1980) is marked by an increased search for new raw material sources to secure the independence of the Dutch paper industry from costly imports. Subsequently, the third major technological advancement—the innovative use of recycled waste paper—once more turns the tide for Dutch papermaking and increases its international competitiveness, yet not close to its former fame. This technological innovation was possible through networked cooperation between agents of the Dutch paper industry and state authorities. During post-Fordism (1980 until now), these networks were substituted by new forms of industrial R&D focused cooperation among agents of the Dutch paper industry as well as with state agents. Politically legitimized under fashionable notions, such as circular economy, innovative technology, production processes, and market-oriented products are propagated as sustainable solutions to ecological problems. Sustainability is the new buzzword under which the repercussions of deindustrialization are said to be tamable by re-orienting manufacturing along market demands and niche products. Hereby, technological innovation is embedded in a discourse on ecological sustainability, while actually prioritizing the need for capitalist profit accumulation and economic growth. Yet, in the post-Fordist time of hyper-competition, cooperation has never been about increasing industries’ ecological sustainability.Footnote 2 Overall, the innovation discourse led in the name of ecological sustainability more generally and in the context of the Netherlands in the name of the circular economy program specifically, disregards any positive aspects of collusive practices, such as the prevention of overproduction and subsequent decrease in waste, which could help diminish competition-led exploitation of natural resources and labor.

In contrast to the belief that the role of the state has been minimized in the post-Fordist era, the findings of this book present a different narrative. The research demonstrates in meticulous detail, that the Dutch government, with varying degrees of involvement, has consistently played an important role to the survival of the Dutch paper industry throughout all phases of capitalism. Notably, during all phases of capitalism, state authorities have maintained close relationships with the dominant capitalist class fraction. In the era of Dutch capitalism (1580–1815), these connections were primarily established with the merchant-capitalist class fraction, which facilitated the flow of colonial monetary and resource capital into national manufacturing industries. However, it is important to note that these ties also prioritized favorable trading policies, which did not always align with the interests of manufacturers.

During the period of Dutch monarchic liberalism (1815–1914), the ties between the state and the Dutch paper industry underwent a partial transformation. These ties were replaced by connections with a new emerging capitalist class fraction known as the gentlemanly capitalists. Together, they embarked on a collaborative endeavor called ‘Building Industria’, which aimed to advance the interests of the manufacturing elite. However, it is important to note that this did not necessarily align with the interests of Veluwian papermakers with their family-owned mills and handmade paper production. The gentlemanly capitalist class fraction established close networking relationships with the monarchs initially and later with the liberal cabinet. Leveraging these close ties with state agents, the two largest paper and board manufacturing companies in the Netherlands at that time, KNP and van Gelder Zonen, exerted significant influence. As a result, they managed to economically overpower the Veluwian paper makers, compelling them to transition from handmade to mechanized paper production.

During the Fordism phase (1914–1980), the role of the state in actively restructuring national sectors became more pronounced. A closely knit network known as the ‘old boys network’, comprising influential political and business figures, played a significant role in securing support from the Dutch state to rejuvenate national industries. The state actively supported initiatives such as the exploration of innovative raw materials, offering substantial subsidies through joint ventures, overseeing sector restructuring and corporatization efforts, and exhibiting leniency toward cartel practices with minimal prosecution. Additionally, the state facilitated consolidation strategies and mergers and acquisitions within the Dutch paper industry and other national industries. These measures aimed to revitalize and strengthen the industrial landscape under the guidance of the state and under the influence of the ‘old boys network’.

During the post-Fordism phase (1980 until now), the close networking ties between state authorities and capitalist class fractions appear to diminish. However, despite the propagation of free market principles and increased competition, the significance of state-industry relations for the survival of the Dutch paper industry remains evident. This book highlights numerous instances of industrial policy during post-Fordism that have contributed to the profitability of industries, including the Dutch paper industry. In fact, the state’s initiation of market deregulation facilitated the transnationalization of ownership, attracting foreign direct investments into the Dutch paper industry. The overarching goal of enhancing the international competitiveness of Dutch industries, including the paper industry, primarily served the interests of the growing transnational capitalist class fraction. However, this increasing dominance also had adverse effects, such as the financialization of manufacturing industries and the relocation of production capacities to economically advantageous, third-wave industrialized countries.

In response to these challenges, the Dutch government implemented strategic objectives of neoliberal de- and re-regulation. These activities included closer collaboration between the public and private sectors to promote R&D cooperation, the privatization of public sectors, active and passive financial support for industry demands, and labor flexibility measures. These actions aimed to address the threats faced by the Dutch paper industry and other sectors within the framework of neoliberal policies.

Throughout the history of the Dutch paper industry, networks served as a means to increase capital accumulation by negotiating the interests of capitalist class fractions. It is crucial to acknowledge that the state plays a fundamental role in these negotiations across all phases of capitalism. The state’s involvement encompasses initiatives to fund cooperative efforts in technological innovation for the development of new capital investment opportunities. Furthermore, the state implements policies focused on fostering competition to establish a so-called “level playing field”, as articulated by former President of the European Commission, Juncker.Footnote 3 Also a main driver of labor flexibilization, it is important not to underestimate the role of the state throughout all phases of capitalism, even during periods characterized by pronounced and full-fledged (neo)liberal tendencies. The state’s influence and engagement remain significant in shaping and supporting industries, including the Dutch paper industry, in various aspects of their development and operations.

In alignment with the recent revival of national and EU-level industrial policy, the historicization of the Dutch paper industry showcases the turnaround of the role of the state in market intervention signaling industrial policy to “be rising like a phoenix from its ashes”.Footnote 4 Through the implementation of Juncker’s agenda, which sought to “devalue labor, enhance competition, and lower corporate taxes” in order to amplify industrial growth and corporate profits in Europe, the industry once again confronts heightened competition and an increasing divide between capital and labor.Footnote 5

To counteract these trends, the Dutch paper industry could shift its focus toward “horizontal and democratic solidarity economy initiatives” that prioritize the interests of various stakeholders, including workers, citizens, indigenous cultures, activists, and environmental organizations, in the production of paper and utilization of natural resources.Footnote 6 In line with this approach, workers must reorganize and fortify their positions outside of the roles traditionally defined by unions within a capitalist framework. More inclusive organizations, encompassing not only workers but also individuals with a vested interest in the conditions of paper and board production, should emerge outside the dominant class fractions to form a potent opposition to capitalist interests.

Regarding technological progress, the industry could explore avenues beyond the confines of the capitalist paradigm, potentially leading to truly innovative methods of producing essential goods within a framework of solidarity. Achieving this would necessitate a global reevaluation of the incremental belief that competition inherently leads to growth. This reevaluation should consider natural resources as belonging to the collective, and recognize the Earth as a common resource for all inhabitants—humans, animals, and plants alike.