of the day ity to be expressed.
But the weak aspects of the conference were also very clear -- une vagueness of the resolution adoptea, te ramure to extend the range of issues the Institute deals with, the lack of clear enough organisational projections, the ambiguous attitude to the left labour bureaucracy. All these stem from the very nature of the political strategy proposed by the IWC.
The strategy of the IC is clearly to The Institute for Workers Control Conference held last weekend in Sheffield took a number of steps forward. It took, virtually for the first time in its history, a resolution on a burning issue the Healey measures; it clearly projected at least some future action — a series of industry meetings and notably a reconvened winter conference; it took some correct positions on the struggle in Portugal; and the conference was a model of workers' democracy in allowing all viewpoints a clear opportunits totally reactionary positions on questions such as IrelandManifesto was the very Social Contract workers voted and struggled, and which provided the ideological lead-in for the bresent incomes boncy. a camparen on cerain points or me Manniesto is ont tning basis for struggles -whole thing including the Social Contract is absurd These contradictions actually leave ine we paralysea. It is very muen nike the situation in 1970, when the Institute got 1,000 delegates to its winter conference. But then it refused, because of its links at that time with Jones and scanion, to take a clear poston in ravour of the political strike called on 8 December against the Industrial Relations Bill. The result was that instead of the IWC growing rapidly as a central focus for struggle against ine bu it rapidly lost support. It has never since had a conference on the same scale as 1970.
CROSSROADS Now, five years later, the IC stands at a similar crossroads. It could play a massive role as one of the central organisers of united action against the policies of the Wilson Government. This would not mean a break with the left MPs and trade.union bureaucrats who clearly oppose measures such as the present incomes policy - indeed these forces should be included in united action. But such a policy does mean breaking with anyone not prepared to oppose Wilson and his policies openly. If the IC is not prepared to make that break it will - the guts of the but to endorse the ures and owner central poncies or this Government. In this the interests of the IWC - which starts off from the bureaucracy and extends down towards the left - coincide with the interests of the revoluonary socausts - wno start witn the needs of the working class, but are not frightened of united action with seetions of the bureaucracy if this takes forward the class struggle.
on for any long period of time of course depends on the developing situation in une class struggle our Party, in particular. If the IWC refuses to break with those who remain on the wrong side of the fence on questions such as the Healey measures, then any collaboration between the main forces of the revolutionary left and the IWC will break down..
with those who refuse to oppose Wilson Ken Coates addresses the Conference guese revolution Whether such united action can go united action.
On the other hand, if the IW breaks openly, or if Benn & Co. are forced by the pressure of their base into at least vacillating opposition to Wilson, then the IWC- along with organisations such as the nue sorear camoast. u Troops Out Movement, the Medical Comnittee against Private Practice, the National Abortion Campaign, and the movement in sondanty with the Fortu - can be one of the channels through which the revolutionary left and the Labour left can both debate mer amerences and eneare u TRAJECTORY At the moment the trajectory of the IWC in this phase of the class struggle is still not clear or decided. The attitude of revolutionary socialists to the IWC should be one of attempting to ensure the best outcome and should be one of genuine collaboration with an aim not of few genuine homeless people today! short term manoeuvres but of thrashing out a basis for joint activity.
In this context two tasks are posed. Firstly to ensure that the WC keeps to its call for industry conferences - and above as ora reconvenes wntercor ference - and to build those conferences in a big way. Secondly, to engage in a debate between the revolutionarv lett and the forces in and around the Institute on the basis on which united action can go forward - something which will permit a better debate than the sometimes scrappy ones at this conference If these two steps are taken, and proVided, revolutionary socialists are prepared to break with the forces in the IWC if and when they cross over the crucial dividing lines of the moment, then a genuine and not sectarian unity in action can be achieved, and the IWC can become a means by which the revol utionary left and the Labour left can engage in a struggle for common objectives