Why do strikes take place

These are tentative observations that I posted in the thread of the above name in www.andhranews.com :
I write down a few tenatative observations; most of these should be prephrased by 'May be".
I think that strikes and boycotts were vigorous during the independence movement and were considered a legitimate part of the struggle. Independence did not bring an end to the injustices and in fact many who fought for independence themselves became corrupt. A song from 1954 film 'Peddamanushulu' talks of selfish people selling our independence in the market place ( 'Nandamaya gurudu nandamaya'). So strikes continued. Nehru already complained about this indiscipline and thought that even though strikes were legitimate for independence, they were not that suitable for nation building. See, Dipesh Chakraborty's article "In the name of politics": i
http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=07&filename=8908&filetype=html
In any case the main party at that time, the Congress Party, consisted of a people of different ideologies whose common aim was Indian independence and the policies were mainly driven from the top with some socialistic ideals from Nehru but there was no coherent ideology. The standard technique during strikes seem to be try to put them down by force if possible and if things get out of hand then diffuse the crisis by setting up an enquiry commision.

For younger people who are frustrated by the slow progress and looking for quick solutions, the only party which gave a world view and a clear ideology and which worked at the grass roots level was the Communist Party. Moreover during the Telangana struggle of 40's various leaders from all over A.P. sacrifised and worked in Telangana. Even now, though it has split in to several groups, they are probably the only groups who educate people at the local level on politics and ideologies. Even though communism (or striving towards it) has failed in several countries, some parts of the Indian society still seems at the level where marxist ideology seems applicable. Moreover some of the contradictions of capitalism predicted by Marx are visible in some places. For example, his prediction about companies swallowing other companies and getting huge and exploiting workers seem to be still happenning in places like Guragon and with some of the multinationals and drug companies. The companies which got contracts after Iraq war are the same companies which are getting contracts after Katrina, and Bush has suspended laws about minimum wages and equal opportunity. I think that these continuing phenomena make Marx still relevant and appealing.

I myself am inclined more towards Scandinavian type social democracies, though my knowledge of them is very limited. I understand that poverty levels are low, salary disparities are less than other western countries, even prime ministers shop like commoners ( and one was killed coming back from shopping). There is good social security. My economist friend tells me that it may not be perfect but is much better than the system in countries like USA and the kind of scenes that one has seen after Katrina were never seen in the Scandinavian countries. He says that one of the main problems there is boredom. Assuming that it is a good compromise between communism and capitalism, how does one achieve such a system in India? For one thing, India is a much bigger country with diverse groups of diverse economic levels and a different evolution. It has not gone through an industrial revolution. Even now compared to China, industrial sector seems to be going down and service sector going up. Most people are too busy making a living in the given system rather than thinking about ideologies and government. During elections, people vote for who ever bullies them or whoever they think will give some benefit to them and are usually disappointed. Many politicians seem to have criminal cases against them. Moreover, there is a suspicion that some of them are working in league with multinationals other western ( this means mainly US and British and does not mean Scandinavian) interests for their own benefits.

Somehow US always comes in to the picture since it is one of the main advocates of democracy for other countries. Some feel that this is just an evolution in the American type capitalism, using some groups in poor countries to control others ( see, for example Kawaljit Singh's books on globalization). What has this got to do with strikes? Again Gurgaon is an example how this system works.
I feel that it is difficult for a few to control other human beings and some how things will evove for the better. How they will evolve I do not know. (My inclination is to work through non profit organizations at the local level). Some strikes which bring political awareness seem to be a part of this evolution.
Swarup