Fifty-one years ago the Berkeley Independent Socialist Club published Hal Draper’s The Two Souls ofSocialism.1 Of the hundreds of radical pamphlets published in the 1960s, Two Souls has had perhaps the longest-lasting impact. Appearing at a time when various forms of top-down versions of socialism—social democracy, Stalinism, and Maoism—were in vogue, its emphasis on workers’ self-emancipation set it clearly apart. Moreover, Draper did not merely reintroduce genuine Marxism to a new generation; in its originality and clarity, Two Souls—and the subsequent work that elaborated in detail on his arguments—presented a different way of looking at the world, at socialism, and at competing ideologies.

Traditional interpretations maintained that the essential divisions in the socialist movement were between reform and revolution, pacifism versus violence, and democracy versus authoritarianism. Two Souls took a somewhat different angle, namely, that “throughout the history of socialist movements and ideas, the fundamental divide is between Socialism-From-Above and Socialism-From-Below,”2 thus introducing the vocabulary, narrative, and ideas of socialism from below as the contemporary representation of revolutionary Marxism.

The unifying feature of the many varieties of socialism from above, Draper argued, is distrust or opposition to the working-class’s potential to recreate society based on its own initiative. Socialism from above, Draper specified, is the idea that socialism “must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite not subject to their control in fact.”3 Distrust of the mass’s ability to rule and denial of democratic control from below are the core tenets of the many variants of socialism from above that have dominated the history of the socialist movement.

The heart of socialism from below is the understanding that “socialism can be realized only through the self-emancipation of activated masses in motion, reaching out for freedom with their own hands, mobilized ‘from below’ in a struggle to take charge of their own destiny, as actors (not merely subjects) on the stage of history.”4 These few words summarize what Draper would later work for decades to restore and defend as the heart of revolutionary Marxism in his analysis of the entire body of Marx’s political writings, as presented in numerous articles, as well as in his indispensable, magnificent multivolume series, Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution (KMTR).

A major thesis of Two Souls was that social democracy and Stalinism, the two major self-styled socialisms from above, despite their real and obvious differences, both identify socialism with the statification of the economy, and both reject workers’ democratic rule as the foundation of socialism. Long before Stalinism, Eduard Bernstein, the theoretical father of social-democratic reformism, was the first to revise Marxism to eliminate working-class self-emancipation from its essence, substituting “superior educated” parliamentary representatives for the “uninformed masses” as the agency for socialism. Social democracy and Stalinism, whose advocates strongly denied their similarities, were the dominant radical ideologies that divided the socialist movement during Draper’s political life, which was split between those who supported “democratic” Washington or “socialist” Moscow. These constrained political choices debilitated the working-class movement long before the wrecking operations of neoliberal capitalism began.

Draper’s other major insight in Two Souls was to show how Marx closely linked revolutionary democracy and revolutionary socialism. Draper traced Marx’s path as “the first socialist thinker and leader who came to socialism through the struggle for liberal democracy,” beginning political life as a “radical democratic extremist,” defending all democratic rights throughout his life, and insisting that democracy meant control from below. Before Marx, “Nowhere did the line of the Socialist Idea intersect with the line of Democracy-from-Below,”5 joining collectivism with democracy. Draper demonstrated that only proletarian socialism could merge collectivism with democracy. Without this fusion of revolutionary democracy and revolutionary socialism, he argued, all other radical variants eventually veer off into some form of socialism from above.

Yet Draper showed that Marx was not so naïve as to think that workers could at any moment run society. To do so, they would have to transform their consciousness and themselves through struggle. As Marx argued to the Communist League in 1850,

We say to the workers: “You will have to go through 15 or 20 or 50 years of civil wars and international wars, not only in order to change extant conditions, but also in order to change yourselves and render yourselves fit for political domination”; you on the other hand say to the workers: “We must attain to power at once, or else we may just as well go to sleep.”6

“This is Marx’s program for the working-class movement,” wrote Draper, “as against those who say the workers can take power any Sunday, and those who say never.”7

Two Souls then applies these insights by contrasting the theory and practice of different, important socialists from above and below. Draper showed that the fathers of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin, were not the libertarians they are claimed to be but authoritarian opponents of all democracy, including a workers’ state. Proudhon, for example, opposed the right to strike. Draper exposed the German Social Democrats Ferdinand Lassalle, and Eduard Bernstein, the English Fabians, and the American nationalist Edward Bellamy—state socialists, revisionists, and would-be reformists—as glorifiers of the existing state and its bureaucracy with its lack of democratic control from below. He contrasted them with contemporary revolutionary champions of workers’ control: William Morris, Rosa Luxemburg, and Eugene Debs, among others. Draper later expanded the pamphlet’s short historical overview of socialism from above with greater depth in the “Critique of Other Socialisms” section of his KMTR.8

Two Souls was a transformative text for those socialists attempting to uphold and revive genuine Marxism in a period dominated by variants of socialism from above. Its introduction defined the political identity of the Independent Socialist Clubs, founded by Draper (along with this author) in Berkeley in 1964. Draper’s ideas were also shared by the International Socialists (IS) in Britain and the International Socialist tendency, a collection of small left organizations internationally, committed to opposing both US imperialism and Stalinism, and that were closely connected to the IS in the UK. Two Souls continues to inform the politics of the International Socialist Organization.

Though Two Souls gained some notoriety on the left, most of Draper’s valuable contributions to Marxism are almost unknown, invisible to today’s radicals. And yet, Draper was arguably the most important American author and defender of international socialist politics in the last half of the twentieth century. Draper’s substantial theoretical innovations came in the period when Marxism was also being distorted beyond recognition by academic reinterpretations that considered Marxism as a form of “class reductionism.”

Draper was resolute in keeping revolutionary ideas alive in those hollow years. Much as Lenin had done in his work State and Revolution, Draper worked to bring Marx’s views—as Marx himself expressed them—to light, to free them from the distortions of “friends” as well as enemies.

The aim of this essay is to introduce to the newly emerging socialist movement Draper’s central role as the Marxist navigator of late-twentieth-century American socialism, free of all the distortions of socialism from above. In that spirit, this article will present a short survey of his work in the context of his political activity.

Along with Engels, Draper believed that Marx’s “real mission in life was to contribute…to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat . . . to make [it] conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation.”9

Born Harold Dubinksy in Brooklyn in 1914, the son of Jewish parents who emigrated from Ukraine, Draper joined the youth organization of the Socialist Party, the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL), when he was a teenager, becoming one of the outstanding socialist student leaders of the 1930s in the student antiwar strikes and in the American Student Union.10 His major achievement in the 1930s was winning the YPSL to the Trotskyist Fourth International—the association of international organizations and parties adhering to the politics of Leon Trotsky, the exiled leader of the Russian revolution who had broken with Russia’s rising bureaucratic state under Stalin. As Draper reported in the September 1937 issue of Socialist Appeal, “The Young People’s Socialist League became the first organization of the Second International to go over to the banner of the Fourth Internationalist movement by action of its 9th National Convention.”11 It was unfortunately, an unmatched record; no other Second International organization ever followed. As a Trotskyist, Draper took part in the US Socialist Workers’ Party founding convention in 1937–38.

But the Fourth International soon revealed that it was unprepared for the eruption of Russian imperialism and the spread of Stalinism beyond Russia. In August 1939, Stalin and Hitler signed a neutrality pact in which they agreed to militarily carve up Poland between them. With crucial German support, Russia occupied Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Finland and Romania. In return, the Russians provided the Nazis with secure borders to successfully fight a one-front war in the West, which led to the conquest of Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France.

The Trotskyist movement maintained that since nationalized property was a conquest of the revolution, Russia remained a workers’ state in spite of the fact that workers were not in control. On these grounds, they supported the Russians in this war of foreign conquest and occupation, calling upon the workers of the invaded countries to assist the Russian army. They claimed that doing so was “defending Russia from imperialist attack.”

Draper was part of a group of SWP leaders that included Max Shachtman, James Burnham, and Martin Abern who refused to support the Soviet invasion and occupation of Eastern European states, and concluded that Russia under Stalin had developed into a new form of class society. The dissidents in 1940 raised a slogan that summarized their opposition to all sides in the war as imperialist, and which would be their signature banner for decades: “Neither Washington nor Moscow, but for the Third Camp of International Socialism.”12 Draper, who as head of the YPSL had led most of its members into the SWP, now as national secretary of the YPSL Fourth International led 90 percent of its members into the new Trotskyist opposition as the movement split over World War II.

Draper was part of the opposition team developing the new position that, under Stalinism, the bureaucracy had emerged as a collectivized ruling class. The Trotskyist majority argued that since the invading Russian army was nationalizing property, destroying the capitalist class, and setting up social systems identical to those of the “Russian workers’ state,” it was carrying out the socialist revolution from above through “bureaucratic, military means.” The opposition, which soon left the SWP to form the Workers’ Party (WP), insisted that, while bourgeois revolutions were often carried out from above, there was no such thing as a socialist revolution from above: the socialist revolution, in Marx’s words, could only be achieved through the self-emancipation of the proletariat.13

The WP restored the theory that workers’ democracy is central to socialism by reexamining what constitutes a workers’ state when property is nationalized. When property is nationalized, they concluded, the question becomes: Who owns and controls the state that is the repository of nationalized property? Workers’ democracy is not an added extra but an essential element; socialism cannot exist without workers’ control of nationalized property, the economy, and the state. In Marx’s words, it is “the raising of the working class to [the] position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy” that defines a workers’ state. When the working class has no power, there is no workers’ state; those who have power, the bureaucracy, are actually the ruling class.

These ideas, which overcame confusion that arose during the process of degeneration of the Russian Revolution, were first developed in the Workers’ Party under the collective leadership of Max Shachtman, Martin Abern, C. L. R. James, Joseph Carter, Ernest Rice McKinney, Albert Glotzer, Raya Dunayevskaya, Irving Howe, Julius Jacobson, and many other veteran Trotskyists. Draper’s collaboration was essential in developing these positions; he spent the rest of his life elaborating upon them. Most of his work cannot be separated from the collective contribution of the WP and its successors.14

Draper was a shipyard worker in San Pedro, California, and a rank-and-file trade union militant during World War II. He took an active part in the finest moment of the WP’s history: its class-struggle approach to antiwar work. That work created rank-and-file groups in major industrial unions in opposition to the pro-war no-strike pledge and class collaboration with the War Labor Board—a pledge signed by the trade-union bureaucracy and supported by the social democrats and Stalinists. In the ensuing great wildcat-strike wave of the war years, the WP was the only radical group willing and able to provide direction and leadership.

When Draper was laid off from the shipyards, he became a full-time organizer for the Los Angeles branch of the WP. His proudest achievement as branch organizer was coordinating trade union work and leading opposition to racism and to fascists through direct working-class mass mobilization, without calling upon the state to ban free speech.

In his article “Free Speech and Political Struggle,” he drew upon these lessons to answer similar questions that arose in the 1960s and are relevant today in the fight against the right wing. “Revolutionary socialists,” he argued, “want to push to the limit . . . the fullest democratic involvement of the great mass of the people . . . all the way [without which] no progressive social transformation is possible.” But he did not reduce all social struggles (strikes, wars, revolutions, etc.) to questions of free speech. “Only juridical cretins can believe that all social struggles are resolved by any kind of speech, free or otherwise…. [S]ocial struggles are decided by the contest of power.”15

In 1948, Draper was called back to New York to help stabilize the WP as editor of the New International, the group’s theoretical monthly. In 1949, the WP reorganized itself as the Independent Socialist League (ISL)—concluding that its size did not warrant calling itself a “party”—with Draper as the editor of its newspaper, Labor Action. For the next eight years, he was pivotal in holding the ISL together by almost singlehandedly putting out a lively newsweekly. At times he wrote entire issues under pen names (Philip Coben, Bernard Cramer, Paul Temple, and H. Spector) to disguise that this stimulating newspaper was the work of one person. A major benefit of Labor Action was its role in educating the Socialist Youth League (later the Young Socialist League), aligned with the ISL—the sole non-Stalinist socialist youth organization of the period. This small youth renewal maintained the continuity of revolutionary socialism, playing an outsized role in the new civil rights movement, and producing a remarkable number of radical leaders of the 1960s as well as cadres for both the future International Socialists (IS) and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Draper’s journalism in the years of reaction strengthened the ISL’s political outlook and international influence, despite its ongoing decline. Labor Action was distinguished by its defense of civil liberties against the anti-Communist witch hunts, championing the emerging civil rights movement, defense of the labor movement, implacable hostility to all imperialism, and support of class struggle and revolt everywhere it appeared. While Labor Action is archived in the Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org), the lack of an index means that the vast majority of Draper’s writings are not readily accessible.16

At the end of the 1940s, Draper directed the ISL’s attempt to deal with the postwar reality that had destroyed its prewar Trotskyist perspective that the end of the war would result in socialist revolution in the capitalist countries and that Stalinism could not survive the war. The ISL dropped the revolutionary dogma that capitalism was no longer capable of expanding, and introduced the “permanent war economy” theory as a starting point to explain the postwar boom.17

The expansion of Stalinism led many ex-radicals, like George Orwell and Hannah Arendt, to support the West, with theories that Stalinism atomized the working class, rendering it incapable of resistance, thus ending class struggle and history. Draper and Shachtman argued instead that Stalinism’s class and national contradictions showed it would be an unstable, short-lived system. Their position was soon confirmed by the Titoist Yugoslav Communist split with Moscow and by working-class revolts in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary, about which Draper wrote extensively.18 But political clarity was not enough to overcome demoralization as revolutionary prospects faded. Cold War McCarthyism hit the working-class left, and the WP went into a long, drawn-out political and organizational decline.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Draper was the most prominent American advocate of third-camp socialism. His was a heroic but losing fight against the drift of the socialist movement toward accommodating and capitulating to Washington or Moscow. He wrote a stream of exposés of the ruling class’s actions, maneuvers, dynamics, policies, and aims for world domination. Some of his strongest polemics were against his former comrades of the WP/ISL, led by Max Shachtman and later Michael Harrington, as they integrated into the pro-Western camp. In 1961, for example, he published a pamphlet that included a speech that Shachtman had delivered to the SP supporting the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, along with his own critique of Shachtman’s arguments.19 Draper’s writings from this period left a strong anti-imperialist heritage for his comrades in the International Socialists to build upon, particularly when they were isolated on the left (as when they publicly opposed Israel’s 1967 War) or faced apologetics for the foreign policies of so-called “progressive” ruling classes.

Only a few of Draper’s antiwar articles are easily available. One collection, America as Overlord,20 begins with “Behind Yalta: The Truth About the War,” a superb exposé that took up the entire April 4, 1955, issue of Labor Action.21 It examined the just-released papers of the February 1945 Yalta Conference, in which the “three great democrats,” Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, met to celebrate their approaching victory by dividing Europe as the spoils of war. As Churchill claims to have said to Stalin at Yalta: “Don’t let us get at cross purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have 90 percent predominance in Romania, for us to have 90 percent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?”22 Draper’s study of the Yalta papers highlighted the imperialist deals that World War II was really about; the contempt that the Big Three had for less powerful nations, including their allies; and the unfolding imperialist rivalries between the three that were to become harbingers of the Cold War. Draper revealed that, at Yalta, the rivalry between Britain and the United States was greater than that between either of them and Russia. Neither the Americans nor the British understood the profound change in the imperialist balance of forces that was shortly to become apparent, beginning the next round of imperialist competition between America and the USSR.

Imperialist crimes examined

In the 1950s Draper focused on the major imperialist crimes of the period (Korea, Suez, Algeria, Hungary), but he also wrote on imperialist outrages others neglected, with essays on America’s role in Guatemala, Okinawa, Samoa, and Guam. The highlight of the collection in America as Overlord are bookend pieces on distinct phases of American imperialism. In the essay “America as Arbiter,” Draper examines the Suez crisis to probe the changes in relations between the United States and the other capitalist powers that resulted from World War II. He defines this new phase of imperialism in the role of the United States as organizer of world capitalism, the superpower that acts as “mediator and arbiter” of its imperialist camp—one that, to be sure, had its own interests within that camp, but had to reconcile the interests of the conflicting capitalist powers into one camp under its domination. Draper connects this to the feudal relation—not of master and serf but of overlord and vassal—and probes the contradictions of this new role as policeman, dominator, organizer, and arbiter for global capitalism.23

The book ends with a wonderful essay that is still relevant as a guide on how to support progressive wars, despite their limitations. “The ABC of National Liberation Movements” was written in 1968, after a massive military action by the forces of the National Liberation Front throughout Vietnam (the Tet offensive), to change the position of the Independent Socialist Clubs.24 Draper argues in an introductory note that Tet revealed that the “war in Vietnam was not primarily a civil war between two Vietnamese sides, one of which (the old reactionary side) was being supported by the imported arms of western imperialists. The Tet offensive showed conclusively that the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese supported the NLF either actively or passively.”

Despite the NLF’s Stalinist politics, which the ISC continued to oppose, it was necessary to support the NLF’s victory as a struggle for self-determination against foreign imperialist aggression. Draper described the historical support of the Marxist movement for genuine wars of national liberation or for democratic rights, despite the undemocratic character and reactionary politics of the class and/or political forces leading them. In doing so, he draws out the distinction between political and military support—“military support” being the Marxist term for supporting the victory of one side without providing political support for its leadership. He then explains the application of this revolutionary policy in previous wars, in a survey that includes China under Chiang Kai-shek against Japanese attack; Yugoslavia under Marshal Tito against a potential Russian invasion; and Ethiopia under Haile Selassie against Mussolini’s Italy, among others. Though written contemporaneously to address a needed adjustment to a political line, it remains a powerful education on Marxist war policy.

The other volume of Draper’s 1950s antiwar essays is War and Revolution: Lenin and the Myth of Revolutionary Defeatism.25 This book is a primer on all aspects of antiwar methodology. Draper addressed the confused thinking within the socialist movement as it attempted to maintain Lenin’s slogan that he issued with the outbreak of World War I of “revolutionary defeatism.” In normal language, calling for the defeat of one side in a conflict implies that you support the victory of the other side. Most revolutionaries thought that if you were not for defeat, then somehow you were for the defense. But as Draper said, “This defeatism of Lenin’s sought to combine some variety of ‘defeat of your own government’ with the antiwar policy of opposition to both war camps.” The murkiness of the position became obvious during World War II for socialists who did not support the Allied war but were not calling for the defeat of the United States by Nazi Germany.

In exploring the history of this slogan in Lenin’s work, Draper discovered that it originated in the Russo-Japanese War, when he supported the defeat of Russia and the victory of “progressive” Japan; this was prior to his understanding of modern imperialism. Lenin later argued that the defeat slogan applied only to reactionary tsarist Russia, not to other countries. But the German Social Democratic Party used precisely that argument to justify its social-patriotic line for supporting Germany against Russia in World War I. Lenin’s slogan became more confusing when socialists attempted to apply it to all countries in an inter-imperialist war such as World War I, calling for the defeat of all while disclaiming victory for any. Lenin justified his position by arguing that calling for defeat would facilitate revolution—it was a way to cut against any concession to ones “own” government’s patriotism. But revolution should not be equated with defeat, nor does defeat necessarily facilitate revolution—it can just as easily facilitate reaction. Lenin had firsthand experience of that danger in the Russian Revolution. The plots of General Kornilov, Alexander Kerensky (president of the provisional government), and others were designed to produce military setbacks—the surrender of Petrograd, and even Russia’s defeat by Germany as a lesser evil—in order to facilitate the victory of the counterrevolution.

Draper sympathetically contrasted the views of leading anti-war internationalists like Luxemburg and Trotsky, who were against both imperialist camps; but in opposing the military victory of their own government, they did not counterpose a desire for its military defeat. Draper’s investigation showed that Lenin abandoned revolutionary defeatism in 1916, didn’t raise it during the Russian Revolution, and never repeated it. The position did not appear in any early Comintern documents.

Zinoviev revived “revolutionary defeatism” in the fight against the Left Opposition to magnify historical differences between Trotsky and Lenin. It was incorporated into the program at the Sixth Comintern Congress of 1928. Defeatism became integrated into the revolutionary canon as the only consistent antiwar policy. Draper’s intellectual courage and principled scholarship caused him to challenge existing revolutionary dogma and examine every aspect of Lenin’s views and contradictions on the question, rejecting defeatism as the one unsound aspect of Lenin’s war policy.

These essays are a remarkable training in socialist scholarship. They show how Marxists can have an open, inquisitive, critical attitude to our theoretical heritage, preserving its essence while overcoming errors. It is one of Draper’s finest contributions to Marxist policy as well as revolutionary functioning. These two books are among the few readily available articles from Draper’s many writings in the 1950s.26

Into the library

Despite Draper’s effort to hold the ISL together through its publications, in 1958 Max Shachtman convinced the organization to dissolve into the Socialist Party. Draper, in his unsuccessful opposition, saw this as an enormous capitulation to right-wing social-democratic politics. In its aftermath he stopped being a full-timer, went to library school, and moved to Berkeley, California, where he worked part-time in the university library. His activity shifted from journalism to theoretical essays, including works that would later become incorporated into Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution. Among those essays are “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Marx and Engels,” “Marx and Engels On Women’s Liberation,” “The Death of the State in Marx and Engels,” and “The Principle of Self-Emancipation in Marx and Engels.”27

All of these titles reference both Marx and Engels; Draper was the strongest fighter against the “persistent effort to put a wall between them . . . eliminating Engels from the picture has a massively crippling effect on any attempt to understand Marx.” He defended Marx and Engels as a partnership, referring to them as “The Firm”—a collaboration with an agreed-upon division of labor. It’s a recurring staple in academic Marxism that the two held different views and that, on at least some questions, Engels didn’t understand Marxism. Draper argues that if Engels got it wrong and Marx thought that he and Engels had the exact same views, “obviously, Marx did not understand Marxism either; only the mythologists do.” To attempt to separate the work of their collaboration, Draper maintained, is to create a hole in the Marxist canon, and “the bigger the vacuum that can be created in the Marx canon the more easily can the empty spaces be filled in freehand and at will by anyone who cares to spin a fantasy of their own about Marxism.”28

In the 1960s, Draper, more than any other radical from the 1930s, was able to make the leap into the new radicalism—as a participant, an interpreter, and a defender of the emerging New Left movements. To start, he was instrumental in the split with the Shachtmanites as they moved to support the Democratic Party and American imperialism, a split that led to the formation of the Berkeley Independent Socialist Club (ISC), forerunner of the International Socialists. He initially opposed a membership organization, but without convincing him, the ISC would not have been founded; he was its theoretical and political leader. It was through the ISC and its cadres that Draper would have his greatest impact on the radicalization of the 1960s.

Auspiciously, the ISC was formed the same night as the Free Speech Movement (FSM), in which Draper and the ISC had important roles. Present at the ISC’s invitation-only inaugural meeting were Mario Savio and Jack Weinberg, shortly to become the two major leaders of the FSM, and this author. These three attended the ISC’s first public meeting, where Draper spoke on “Clark Kerr’s Vision of the University.” The next day Weinberg was arrested at the Campus Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) table and placed in a police car, which provoked the now-famous sit-down around the car. The police car became the stage for a speak-out in which both Savio and Weinberg carried Draper’s ideas of the preceding night into the new movement. The following week, the ISC published those ideas as a pamphlet called The Mind of Clark Kerr, His View of the University Factory,29 which became the “bible” of the FSM—the framework of ideas for which it fought against Kerr’s model of the university. Kerr, then president of the University of California system, saw the university as a “knowledge factory,” integrated with and subservient to industry and business, with himself as the “captain of the bureaucracy” and students as raw material to become technicians and middle managers for capitalism. It was, Kerr said, the “wave of the future” and it would be pointless to try to fight it—or so he thought until the captains of business ordered their hired hand in the bureaucracy to shut down the Berkeley civil rights movement, unleashing the FSM.

Draper was a frequent, powerful speaker at FSM rallies, interpreting the dynamics of the social and political forces in California that stood lined up against the students in the battle of Berkeley. He connected with and understood the impulses and consciousness moving the new generation of radicals. Kerr saw Draper as his main intellectual opponent, referring to him as “the chief guru of the FSM.”30 Many of Draper’s ideas were expressed by Mario Savio, including in his famous speech on stopping the machine by putting your bodies on the gears. Draper wrote the classic history of the FSM: Berkeley, The New Student Revolt.31 His series of articles in New Politics marked his role as the intellectual defender of the New Left against its old-left critics.32

The FSM was a link in the radical chain, the bridge between the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement, the catalyst in the creation of the mass student left that played a leading role in the antiwar and other social movements. The American war in Vietnam took off a few months after the FSM was founded, in March 1965. Opposition emerged with a series of teach-ins that began at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and spread throughout the country. In Berkeley, as a result of the FSM, the thirty-six-hour Vietnam Day teach-in was the largest in the country, drawing 30,000 people. Draper, as representative of the ISC, was asked to debate a leading peace activist, Robert Pickus, on immediate withdrawal versus negotiations now. Draper boldly proclaimed that people who proposed negotiations shared the American imperialist mentality, assuming that the United States had a right to negotiate the fate of another country. Second, he asserted that promoting negotiations was a pro-war position of “war now, peace later.”33 The United States would continue to wage war while it negotiated to achieve its goals, and if the Vietnamese did not capitulate to US demands, war would be prolonged. Negotiations were thus a liberal cover to justify the continuation of war. Using his impressive knowledge of foreign policy, Draper won the debate and the Berkeley student movement to the position of immediate withdrawal. From there the call for immediate withdrawal gained credibility and spread nationally. This would have occurred in time without Draper’s efforts, but he certainly helped speed up the process.

In 1967, Draper wrote an article for the first issue of the Independent Socialist (later renamed Workers’ Power) called “Who Will Be the Lesser Evil in ’68?” 34 After Two Souls, it is the most quoted and best known of Draper’s writings. It makes an unforgettable argument against voting for the Democratic Party as a lesser evil by showing how that dynamic has helped propel all politics further to the right. Draper reasoned “that you can’t fight the victory of the rightmost forces by sacrificing your own independent strength to support elements just the next step away from them.” Even when there really is a lesser evil, supporting it undercuts prospects for fighting the Right, and usually results in getting both the lesser and the greater evil—as liberal and conservative policies often converge to serve the needs of capitalism. In posing the question of whether to vote for the Democrats as the lesser evil, “it is the question that is the disaster, not the answer. In setups where the choice is between one capitalist politician and another, the defeat comes in accepting the limitations of this choice.”

In 1968, the ISC was the architect of the California Peace and Freedom Party (PFP), which registered 120,000 people into a new, independent political party committed to Black liberation and opposition to the war. The PFP formed an alliance with the Black Panther Party (BPP), and Draper played a major role in organizing the campaign to run Eldridge Cleaver of the BPP as the PFP’s presidential nominee. Cleaver’s politics, however, were unstable; he made rapid moves to ally first with the politics of counterculture “yippies,” and then those of guerrilla warfare. This led to a disastrous campaign and damaged hopes that the PFP would be the springboard for independent political action. It was to be the last major movement activism he engaged in. The collapse of the New Left and student movements in the next two years was another demoralizing element.

In 1971, Draper led a small split from the International Socialists. The new perspective he outlined was that the road to a revolutionary party was not through traditional socialist organization, though this was still the future goal. Two of Draper’s essays now popular on the internet, “A New Beginning” and “Anatomy of the Micro-sect,” summarize his new position.35 Although they are the weakest of Draper’s published works, they found significant support among radicals who were disillusioned with revolutionary organization and open to viewing the decline of the Left during a reactionary period as due to subjective weakness in left organizations, including real sectarianism that existed at the time among competing small organizations making wildly unrealistic claims as to their own capacity to lead the masses.

Draper proposed creating a political center, principally defined as a publication center, as an alternative to what he rejected as the “sect” road, a membership organization based on a well-defined program. In a series of essays, Draper, known for being extraordinarily meticulous in his scholarship, strangely presents embarrassingly superficial historical narratives to back up his new views. He makes the sweeping claim, without evidence, that no sect has ever succeeded in producing a revolutionary party, ignoring the emergence of the European socialist movement. Bolshevism, he asserts, was in essence Lenin’s political center, focused on the publication Iskra. This has some validity for the period leading up to 1903 and the formation of the relatively small Bolshevik faction. The subsequent emergence of Bolshevism as a mass party with its underground illegal organization, shop organization, factory-cell structure, district committees, and cadres is ignored, replaced by Draper’s bizarre, unsubstantiated claims that the Bolsheviks remained a faction, was not a membership organization, and was a broad party.

The real difficulties of building revolutionary organization evaporate when all that is needed is a publication produced by a small number of self-selected editors, without the messy problems of a membership, democratic input, control, or correction. Draper criticizes the failures of sects, while ignoring the inability of political centers such as Monthly Review, the National Guardian, and Dissent, to be the road to creating a mass party. He ignores the history of his own political centers that were no more successful. Labor Action could not stop the disintegration of the ISL. The Independent Socialist Committee of 1963, which Draper chaired, attempted to maintain loose ties with left-wingers through pamphlets, publications, and correspondence, and was a miserable flop until the ISC launched as a membership organization. The Center for Socialist History has issued some good publications, but that’s its limit.

The best ideas cannot substitute for organization. The most tragic example is that of Leon Trotsky acting as a fantastic political center in 1930s Germany. Trotsky’s writings on fascism and how to fight it are among the greatest works of Marxist analysis, and they had mass readership and popular support. But they could not be translated into action, as the miniscule size of the Trotskyist organization made it impossible for Trotsky’s views to become a material factor in the fight against fascism. Draper’s ideas, as this essay maintains, are vital in the fight for socialist revolution. But they can only be realized if they are debated and deployed by revolutionary fighters, cadres, and rank-and-file workers trained in organizations based on those political ideas.

In the last twenty years of his life, Draper made his last great contribution to the socialist movement by delivering the fullest explanation of revolutionary Marxism ever to appear in print, Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution (KMTR).36KMTR, four massive volumes that total more than 3,000 pages, provides the foundation for the entire structure of the politics of socialism from below. It integrates the interconnected political questions that Marx worked on throughout his life: class, the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, and other classes; self-emancipation; the class nature of the state; state bureaucracy; revolution; Bonapartism; the dictatorship of the proletariat; and other political tendencies. Its amazing scholarship was an inspired advance in Marxist literature and theory. As Paul Sweezy of Monthly Review stated, “It will remain an indispensable source for all serious students of Marxian ideas . . . there is nothing in the existing literature which is even remotely comparable to it.” It is an all-encompassing but, as Robert Heilbroner wrote in the New York Review of Books, “extraordinarily stimulating work, written in a fresh, open, often amusing style.” 37 It is the outcome of Draper’s talents as a highly readable, clear, engaging, and witty writer. His brilliant intellect, sharp, analytical mind, and extraordinary capacity for hard work shine through each volume. Draper taught himself German as he was writing the book to better understand Marx’s words, nuances, meanings, and to retranslate passages where Marx had been misinterpreted by inaccurate or clumsy translations.

Draper’s self-imposed mission in KMTR is to allow Marx to speak for himself, to restore Marx’s thought—not as others have interpreted it but as Marx himself saw it. It is, in its copious citation of Marx’s ideas, Marx’s own “meaning of Marxism.” Draper does this not through selective clippings, quotations, or articles, but through systematically engaging with Marx’s entire corpus. Draper restricts his study to Marx the political man, not Marx the philosopher, economist, or theorist of historical materialism. His anchor begins with Engels’s characterization that “above all else Marx was a proletarian revolutionist,” and the first volume begins with a new explanation of how Marx became a Marxist. Draper focuses not on the traditional narrative of Marx’s philosophical development—from the Young Hegelians to Feuerbach, and beyond—but rather on Marx’s political emancipation from Hegel’s political philosophy on the state, bureaucracy, and private property. For Hegel the state (including the absolutist, authoritarian, monarchical Prussian state) is eternal; it embodies the just relationship of harmony among society’s elements and is the realization of freedom. The state bureaucracy was thus the “universal class,” representing the interests of all of society.38 Marx’s rejection of the existing state and its institutions and bureaucracy led him on a journey “from a radical-democratic liberal to revolutionary-democratic communist,” from democratic extremist defender of the free press and all democratic rights to finding that those goals were best realized in the proletariat, in socialism, and—crucially—in the principle of proletarian self-emancipation, the foundation of revolutionary socialism from below.

Draper’s first volume, State and Bureaucracy, is not a “short course” introduction with a few maxims and quotations on the relation of the state to the ruling class. It explores Marx’s realization that the state and the bureaucracy exist to defend private property, which led him to become a Marxist. Throughout his life he continued to refine his ideas on these questions. Draper explores all of Marx’s rich, highly complex explorations of the nature of the state and its bureaucracy in ever-changing class societies, in different historical situations, with the developments of classes and their separate layers, and in terms of the relationship between base and superstructure. The emphasis is on the capitalist state and the peculiarities of the capitalist class, which give rise to the “political ineptitude” of the bourgeoisie as a governing class. This is truer for the bourgeoisie than for any previous ruling class because, under capitalism more than any other class society, economics and politics are separated. As Draper remarks, rule by a capitalist class was

profusely crisscrossed internally with competing and conflicting interest groups, each at the other’s throat . . . competing national groups (countries) are split by regional group interests, different industrial interests. Antagonisms within an industry, rivalry between producers of consumers and producers goods, light and heavy industry . . . internally, [made] capitalism . . . a snake-pit. By comparison, the incessant feuding of medieval barons was a marshmallow-throwing contest.39

The bourgeoisie remains the ruling class as long as the social relations of capitalist production are maintained, but the different permutations of this dynamic and its relation to the political state vary widely, as Marx explored and Draper detailed amply.

To present Marx’s views faithfully, Draper asserts, requires an “excavation.” Draper models his methodology on Lenin’s State and Revolution, which Lenin described as an engagement “in excavations, as it were, to bring undistorted Marxism to the knowledge of the mass of the people.”40 Even Lenin, Marx’s greatest disciple, was for most of his political life unaware of Marx’s real views on the state. Most of Marx’s collected work had not been printed, and Lenin accepted prevailing Second International doctrine, which held that the institutions and bureaucracy of the state could be used for socialist construction, and that only anarchists call for the destruction of the existing class state. Lenin had to do a personal as well as a political excavation. He dug up all of Marx’s then-extant printed work about the state in order to wipe away the reformist gloss that the Second International had overlaid onto Marx’s views and restore Marx’s revolutionary opposition to the existing state, representing his views on a workers’ state and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Draper made that his model for KMTR: it is a personal as well as a political restoration project for all of Marx’s political views, not just one, and to uncover and clear away not just social-democratic falsifications but also more recent distortions imposed on Marxism as a result of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution.

Draper submits that, in the process of degeneration and Stalinist counterrevolution, it was not only the institutions of proletarian rule (soviets, trade unions, the Bolshevik Party, etc.) that degenerated; ideas did as well. Principles became distorted as necessary measures to defend the revolution against imperialist invasion and counterrevolution, and were turned into virtues. Draper argues that, had the German Revolution been successful, these distortions—which Lenin recognized as retreats from socialism—might have been thrown out the window. But the German Revolution failed, and these distorted ideas were then accepted and passed on as the norms of Marxism: “The distortions became principles.”41 One example is Trotsky’s conclusion that “the dictatorship of the proletariat found its distorted but indubitable expression as the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.”42 This idea, from the greatest fighter against the rising bureaucracy, had no relation to anything in Marx’s thinking but shows how ideas accepted as Marxist theory became damaged as a result of the Russian degeneration.

The second volume, The Politics of Social Class, is groundbreaking: there has been nothing approaching it in the Marxist literature for the past 150 years. Draper proceeds from the understanding that “class dynamics is the foundation of all of Marx’s politics.” He examines the anatomy of all the social classes of modern society and their interrelations with the working class. There are individual sections that pore over Marx’s assessments of the bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, peasantry, and intellectuals, and their politics and role in revolution. These in-depth sections, with their 700 pages of complex and sophisticated delineation of class composition, class struggle, class structure, and the relation of different classes to politics and revolution, are indispensable political guides. In particular, a discussion on Marx’s and Engels’s conclusions on class forces in the 1848 revolution shows that they were the basis for the theory of permanent revolution, on which Trotsky later elaborated.43

Draper’s approach to social class is also borrowed from Lenin: “Marxism is the theory and practice of proletarian revolution.” The key word is proletarian, and the focus is on what distinguishes the proletariat in its revolution. Marx states that the working-class movement, unlike the movements of all previous revolutionary classes, which had been minority class movements, is “the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.”44

Working-class revolution is different from all previous revolutions because the proletariat is a propertyless class; it does not, nor can it, own property. The bourgeoisie, the previous revolutionary class, was able to build its economic power under feudalism, then politically supplant the old, decaying feudal ruling class through bourgeois revolutions. However, Marx says, that it is impossible for the propertyless proletariat to develop its economic powers under capitalism. Proletarian revolution can only succeed by conquering political power, “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.”45 Political power then starts the process of economic transformation to socialism. And, as Draper stresses, the proletariat must do that very rapidly once it takes power; otherwise, it will be defeated by the rooted power of the capitalist class and its institutions. Nationalized property does not create a workers’ state, but a workers’ state nationalizes property. Proletarian revolution is a reversal of previous revolutionary patterns: the conquest of political power must come first, and success occurs if and when the political revolution leads to an economic and social revolution. The proletariat’s inability to own property circumscribes its only way to rule democratically and collectively, without which it cannot be a ruling class. To emancipate itself, it is forced to liberate all humanity, which is what makes the proletariat the “universal class” in Marxist theory.46

Democratic collectivism is the introduction of proletarian democracy. Yet, Draper clarifies, when most people discuss democracy they mean bourgeois democracy. Working-class and bourgeois democracy overlap in such matters as rights to free speech, free press, free assembly, the right to organize opposition, and so on. Marx defends all bourgeois democratic rights, but states that under bourgeois democracy they are at best limited and distorted and often little more than a “democratic swindle.” The model country of the democratic swindle, Marx says, is the United States, where democratic rights are used to convince the working class to cooperate in their own exploitation. Democracy has to be separated from its bourgeois shell. The basic element of proletarian democracy is democratic control from below; but it is necessary to create a new, more democratic form of state in which control can actually come from below.47 As Engels stated in an 1891 postscript to Marx’s Civil War in France, “Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the phrase: dictatorship of the proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat.”48 In short, the workers’ dictatorship consisted of organs of direct democracy (workers’ councils, soviets, factory committees, trade unions, workers’ militias, etc.) controlled by the working class from below.

Draper wrote a whole volume on the dictatorship of the proletariat devoted to dispelling forever the slanders against Marxism on this issue.49 It is questionable whether there will ever be another inquiry on the topic in this depth, and anyone who writes on the subject in the future will have to deal with Draper’s volume to be taken seriously. To undo the damage done to Marx, Draper examines the meaning of the term dictatorship over the centuries, its currency in Marx’s time, and how it has no relation to the modern usage of dictatorship: an individual dictator, a party dictatorship, a military regime, or a repressive “barracks communism.” Draper explores every instance of Marx’s use of the term dictatorship of the proletariat and finds that it is always a dictatorship of a class: that is, dominating society by setting up class institutions of power and class rule. In Marx’s day, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie just meant the rule and dominance of capitalism over the institutions, laws, and ruling ideas of capitalist society. Draper shows that Marx uses the term dictatorship of the proletariat interchangeably with proletarian power, with proletarian political rule, with workers’ democracy, with workers’ state—the term had no other meaning for Marx, nor should it for socialists.

Class dynamics—the raising of the working class to the position of ruling class—are the substance of all of Marx and Engels’s socialist politics. The proletariat, the state, revolution, and the dictatorship of the proletariat form a unity, and that unity is the self-organization and self-emancipation of the working class. The working class, to emancipate itself, has to become fit to rule through revolutionary activity. It cannot be free to rule until it liberates itself of all capitalist ideas and politics. For Marx, this begins with independent working-class organization to carry through these struggles, to raise the consciousness, confidence, and combativity of the working class. Through this process workers become fit to rule. The school of revolutionary politics goes only through working-class organization, independent of the ruling class.

Draper, the most important American Marxist theorist of the latter half of the twentieth century, dedicated his life’s work and the enormous effort of KMTR to helping revive Marx’s proletarian revolutionary ideas because of their historic mission of working-class self-emancipation. His writings have much in them to educate a new generation of revolutionaries. But they will only come fully into their own when Marx’s does, when a revival of class struggle produces a working class that is conscious of its real position. To succeed, cadres will have to be educated and trained in the politics of socialism from below, merging with the vanguard of the working class in creating a revolutionary leadership dedicated to the self-emancipation of the working class as the road to the future socialist society.


Eddie Johnson sues the Chicago Tribune, others, for defamation

A former NBA player filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets over inaccurate reports in August that linked him to a sex crime in Florida.

Eddie Johnson, a Chicago native and former University of Illinois star who played 18 years in the NBA, works as a Phoenix Suns TV analyst. He was on vacation in Hawaii at the time and had nothing to do with the alleged assault on an 8-year-old girl in Ocala, Fla.

The suspect arrested in the case was a man also named Eddie Johnson, who also is a former NBA player.

An Associated Press story on Aug. 8 correctly identified the suspect as the former Atlanta Hawks player who attended Auburn University.

But a Tribune story on Aug. 9 mistakenly identified the suspect as the Eddie Johnson who had starred at the University of Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that the Tribune published the story with reckless disregard for whether it was true.

"It is a most foul libel indeed to be falsely accused of being a child molester," the lawsuit said.

The day after the Tribune story appeared, Dan McGrath, the paper's associate managing editor/sports, apologized for the "inadvertent but hurtful error" that he said occurred in the rush to meet deadlines.

"For the record, Chicago's Eddie Johnson remains extensively involved in charity work, including motivational speaking and basketball clinics for kids," McGrath wrote. "He was and is regarded as one of the NBA's model citizens."

Paulette Dodson, a Tribune attorney, said Thursday that McGrath's article already had expressed the newspaper's regret over the incident.

"Clearly, there was no malice on our part," Dodson said. "We plan to defend ourselves fully against the lawsuit."

The lawsuit also accuses other media outlets of similar mistakes.

According to the lawsuit, sports commentator and former Tribune columnist Skip Bayless mistook the Suns' TV analyst for the Florida suspect while appearing on radio on "The Jim Rome Show."

Bayless and Clear Channel Communications, which the suit identified as the owner of the program, could not be reached Thursday for comment.

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

Click to expand...

I don't see how he can win. The Trib may decide it's cheaper to pay him off, though.

Tribune had no intent in simply misreporting the facts. The judge will likely throw this suit out quickly, given the paper's prompt and thorough apology, and should. Meanwhile, by filing the suit, Johnson gives new readers the opportunity to discover the original misidentification, some of whom will believe he's the bad guy.

Tribune had no intent in simply misreporting the facts. The judge will likely throw this suit out quickly, given the paper's prompt and thorough apology, and should. Meanwhile, by filing the suit, Johnson gives new readers the opportunity to discover the original misidentification, some of whom will believe he's the bad guy.

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

Click to expand...

Regarding whether or not he's a public figure...the Supreme Court really has never ruled one way or the other, but lower courts have ruled time after time that public figures do NOT lose their public figure status with a lapse of time. The reason for that being that public figures do not lose their access to the media where they can defend themselves against wrongful accusations like we saw in this very case. Indeed there were at least one or two articles specifically about how Johnson was wrongfully named as being a child molester when of course he wasn't. He had to go out and defend his name using the media, and that's exactly what he did. For example: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2006-08-10-innocent-eddie-johnson_x.htm

Anyway, that's irrelevent I believe since he's still very much in the public light these days. Whether it's by being the voice of Phoenix Suns basketball, or through writing basketball articles on Hoopshype, he almost certainly would still be considered a public figure even if he somehow did lose it over time.

Did the Trib screw up with this article? Sure. Was there actual malice? Its going to be almost impossible for him to prove that. Especially with the subsequential apology.


There is a technique typically referred to as SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language). This technique has been standardized by W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) as a technique for describing spatial and temporal layout by combining contents that contain text, static images, video, and sound. The SMIL description language differs from the Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) in that time information is included in the content. Incidentally, the HTML description language is the most popular language for use on the Internet.
Now a method will be explained here whereby a client plays back content that is on a server and made in the SMIL description language, via a network.
FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating content distribution using SMIL. In this figure, client 201 accesses server 203 over network 200, acquires an SMIL file in which content is described, and interprets the acquired SMIL file. Next, the media described in the SMIL file, such as text, static images, video, and sound, is acquired from server 202 and server 204. Then, based on the time information described in the SMIL file, each media (text, static images, video, and music) plays back at appropriate time. Incidentally, the SMIL file, the sound and video, and the text and static image, that in this figure are stored in respective servers 202, 203, and 204, can be stored in one server.
Now, the transmission method for the SMIL file and for each media will be explained.
The communication protocol typically used to transmit media files including SMIL files, static image files, and text files from servers 202, 203, and 204 to client 201 is referred to as TCP (Transmission Control Protocol). This TCP is a reliable protocol as HTML and is widely used on the Internet. In contrast, the communication protocol frequently used to transmit temporally continuous data such as sound data and video data is RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol) and UDP (User Datagram Protocol). As for the lower protocol to transmit TCP or RTP/UDP, the IP (Internet Protocol) protocol is common.
The above TCP, RTP, UDP, and IP protocols are all standardized by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and spread widely on the Internet.
Next, a content description method for SMIL files will be briefly explained.
FIG. 2 is a diagram showing sample sentences described in SMIL. In this figure, the numbers on the left end (1, 2, . . . ) are the line numbers provided for clarification, and on the right end are explanatory sentences. These numbers and explanatory sentences are not described in the actual SMIL file.
The text surrounded by the number 1 and the number 15 is the SMIL document, and the contents thereof consists of a header portion shown between the number 2 and the number 8 and the body text shown between the number 9 and the number 14. In the header portion, layout information is described, which does not relate to time information. In the body text, time information is described, which relates to the actual media data and playback. The description shown by the number 11 is a control sentence for displaying video. In addition, the description shown by the number 12 is a control sentence for displaying static images. These are surrounded by <par>'s shown by the numbers 10 and 13. The parts surrounded by these <par>'s indicate that they play back at the same time. The present example indicates that the video and the static image play back at the same time. The location of media is described by “src.” In addition, specification as to the playback time of media is described by “begin,” “end,” “dur,” and such. In this case, “begin” specifies the media start time, “end” specifies the media end time, and “dur” specifies the media playback time.
In addition, the description shown by the number 11 indicates that the video data specified by “src” will be displayed for 3 to 20 seconds in the region shown as “a.” The description shown by the number 12 indicates that the static image data specified by “src” will be displayed for 10 seconds in the region shown as “b.” The playback start and end are specified by absolute time as in the descriptions shown by the numbers 11 and 12; however, they can be specified by means of sequence, as shown in below Examples (1) and (2).


Former finance director is put on notice in Town of Lewiston – Buffalo News

Former finance director is put on notice in Town of LewistonBuffalo NewsLEWISTON – Without any previous discussion or notice on the agenda, Town Supervisor Dennis J. Brochey told the other board members Monday that he wants to remove former Finance Director Michael Johnson from his position as the town's internal ...


Q:

RelativeLayout to the right instead of on top

How can i make the imageViews land beside eachother and not on top of eachother?
    public void deckButtonOnClick(View v) {
    ImageView imageView = new ImageView(getApplicationContext());
    imageView.setImageResource(DECK.takeCard());
    imageView.setAdjustViewBounds(true);
    imageView.setLayoutParams(PARAMS);
    imageView.setTag("0");
    imageView.setOnClickListener(new MyOnClickListener());

    ((RelativeLayout) findViewById(R.id.innerRelativeLayout)).addView(imageView);

}

Thank you!

A:

Option 1: Rework your container for the cards as a LinearLayout instead of RelativeLayout, using orientation="horizontal".
Option 2: Using the RelativeLayout, you'll need to give each imageView you create an ID (maybe increment a counter each time one is created and append it to the ID). Then, when you are creating your PARAMS variable, you can add a rule to align to the right of the previous ImageView.
PARAMS = new RelativeLayout.LayoutParams(RelativeLayout.LayoutParams.WRAP_CONTENT, RelativeLayout.LayoutParams.WRAP_CONTENT);
PARAMS.addRule(RelativeLayout.RIGHT_OF, R.id.imageView1);
imageView.setLayoutParams(PARAMS);


---
abstract: 'We analyze residual spectra of 3 K blackbody radiation (CMB) using non-extensive thermostatistics with a parameter $q-1$. The limits of $|q-1|< 1.2\times 10^{-5}$ and the temperature fluctuation $|\delta T|< (1.6\sim 4.3)\times 10^{-5}$ are smaller than those by Tsallis et al. Moreover, analyzing the monopole spectrum by a formula including the chemical potential $\mu$, we obtain the limits $|q-1| < 2.3\times 10^{-5}$ and $|\mu| < 1.6\times 10^{-4}$. $|q-1|$ is comparable with the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect $y$.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan'
- 'Toba National College of Maritime Technology, Toba 517-8501, Japan'
author:
- Minoru Biyajima
- Takuya Mizoguchi
bibliography:
- '<your-bib-database>.bib'
title: 'Analysis of residual spectra and the monopole spectrum for 3 K blackbody radiation by means of non-extensive thermostatistics'
---

3K CMB; non-extensive thermostatistics; dimensionless chemical potential; Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect

\[sec1\]Introduction
====================

Very recently, it was reported [@iwasaki2012] that there is a similarity between the blackbody radiation law (i.e., the Planck distribution) and X-ray spectrum. An interesting experimental investigation for this was carried out in [@kawai2012].The authors cited several papers related to the non-extensive formulas for the Planck distribution [@tsallis1995; @plastino1995; @tirnakli1998]. More useful information on non-extensive thermostatistics is found in Ref. [@tsallis2009]. The present study is relating to the non-extensive formulas used in the description of the 3 K blackbody radiation (cosmic microwave background (CMB)) [@tsallis1995].

The essence of Ref. [@tsallis1995] is given as follows: The Planck distribution is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
  U_{\rm Planck}(T,\,\nu) = \frac{8\pi h \nu^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{e^x - 1},
  \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ where $x=h\nu/kT$; $h$, $k$ and $T$ are the Planck’s constant, the Boltzmann’s constant and the temperature, respectively. $c$ is the speed of the light. The non-extensive formula for the Planck distribution is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} U^{\rm (NETD\:I)}(T,\,\nu,\,q) = U_{\rm Planck}(T,\,\nu)[1-e^{-x}]^{(q-1)}\nonumber\\
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} \quad \times\left\{ 1+(1-q)x\left[\frac{1+e^{-x}}{1-e^{-x}}
  -\frac x2\frac{1+3e^{-x}}{(1-e^{-x})^2} \right] \right\},
  \label{eq2}\\
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} {\smash{\mathop{\hbox to 1cm{\rightarrowfill}}\limits^{\ (q-1)\ll 1\ }}}\ U_{\rm Planck}(T,\,\nu)
  +\frac{8\pi h\nu^3}{c^3}\frac{q-1}{e^x-1}\nonumber\\
   &&\hspace*{-12mm} \quad \times\left[ \ln(1-e^{-x}) - x\frac{1+e^{-x}}{1-e^{-x}}
  + \frac{x^2}2\frac{1+3e^{-x}}{(1-e^{-x})^2} \right],
  \label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ where $(q-1)$ is named the non-extensive or Tsallis parameter.

The authors of Ref. [@tsallis1995] analyzed the residual spectrum of the 3 K blackbody radiation (CMB) reported by the NASA COBE Collaboration in 1994 [@mather1994], which can be called the first residual spectrum. The residual spectrum is computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} {\rm [residual\ spectrum]}\nonumber\\
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} \quad ={\rm [COBE\ data] - [Eq.\ (\ref{eq1})\ with}\ T=T_{\rm CMB}\ {\rm K]}\end{aligned}$$ In their analyses, they utilized Eq. (\[eq3\]) with Eq. (\[eq1\]), and the following formula for the temperature fluctuation in Eq. (\[eq1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
  {\frac{\partial U_{\rm Planck}}{\partial T}}\delta T = \frac{e^x x}{(e^x-1)^2}\frac{\delta T}{T},
  \label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta T$ is the temperature fluctuation (a constant number) and $T=T_{\rm CMB}$. Our confirmation of their analysis and our analysis are shown in Fig. \[fig1\].

![\[fig1\]Analysis of the first residual spectrum (1994). Our confirmation of the analysis by Tsallis et al. [@tsallis1995] (1995). Dashed line: Eq. (\[eq3\]) without $U_{\rm Planck}$ using $(q-1) = 3.6\times 10^{-5}$. Dotted line: Eq. (\[eq4\]) with $\delta T = -0.1$ mK. Solid line: Sum of them ($\chi^2/NDF = 39/32$). Dashed-dotted line: Ours by using the method of minimum-$\chi^2$; $(q-1) = 3.2\times 10^{-6}$ and $\delta T = -9.4\times 10^{-3}$ mK ($\chi^2/NDF = 32/32$). ](fig1.eps){height="80mm"}

Plastino et al. [@plastino1995], also used Eq. (\[eq3\]) to estimate the parameter $(q-1)$ in the analysis of 3 K blackbody radiation.

It is noteworthy mentioning the non-extensive formula in the dilute gas approximation [@tirnakli1998]. The Bose-Einstein distributions in that approximation is computed as, $$\begin{aligned}
  &&\hspace*{-14mm} U^{\rm (NETD\:II)}(T,\,\nu,\,\mu,\,q)\nonumber\\
  &&\hspace*{-14mm}  = \frac{8\pi h\nu^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{[1+(q-1)(x+\mu)]^{1/(q-1)}-1}\nonumber\\
  &&\hspace*{-14mm} {\smash{\mathop{\hbox to 1cm{\rightarrowfill}}\limits^{\ (q-1)\ll 1\ }}}\
  \frac{8\pi h\nu^3}{c^3}\left[\frac 1{e^x-1} -\frac{\mu e^x}{(e^x-1)^2} + \frac{q-1}2\frac{e^xx^2}{(e^x-1)^2}\right].\nonumber\\
  \label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$

Moreover, on the basis of the assumption of a g-on gas, Ertik et al [@ertik2009] obtained the following expression with the Mittag-Leffler (ML) function. (See also [@suzuki2002].) $$\begin{aligned}
  &&\hspace*{-14mm} U^{\rm (NETD\:III)}(T,\,\nu,\,\mu,\,\alpha) = \frac{8\pi h \nu^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{E_{\alpha}(x+\mu) - 1}\nonumber\\
  &&\hspace*{-14mm} {\smash{\mathop{\hbox to 1cm{\rightarrowfill}}\limits^{\ (\alpha -1)\ll 1\ }}}\
  \frac{8\pi h\nu^3}{c^3}\left[\frac 1{e^x-1} -\frac{\mu e^x}{(e^x-1)^2} + (\alpha -1)\frac{f(x)}{(e^x-1)^2}\right],\nonumber\\
  \label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\alpha}(x+\mu) &\!\!\!=&\!\!\! \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(x+\mu)^n}{\Gamma(n\alpha + 1)},\\
f(x) &\!\!\!=&\!\!\! \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{kx^k\psi(1+k)}{\Gamma(1+k)}, \end{aligned}$$ $\psi(z) = d(\ln \Gamma (z))/dz$ is the digamma function, and $(\alpha -1)$ is named the fractional parameter.

Several estimated values by means of non-extensive thermostatistics are summarized in Table \[tab1\].

              Authors                                   Formula                       data           Estimated limits, $\chi^2/NDF$
  -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------------------------------------------
    Tsallis et al [@tsallis1995]         $U^{\rm (NETD\:I)} - U_{\rm Planck} $        residual       $(q-1)=3.6\times 10^{-5}$ (fixed),
                                    $+ (\partial U_{\rm Planck}/\partial T)\delta T$  spectrum       $\delta T =-1.0\times 10^{-4}$, 39.3/32
            Our analysis                           (minimum-$\chi^2$)                 (RS) (1994)    $(q-1)=(0.3\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-5}$,
                                                                                $\delta T=(-0.9\pm 5.1)\times 10^{-5}$, 32.2/32
   Plastino et al [@plastino1995]         $U^{\rm (NETD\:I)} - U_{\rm Planck}$        RS (1994)      $|q-1|<5.3\times 10^{-4}$
   Tirnakli et al [@tirnakli1998]                 $U^{\rm (NETD\:II)}$                RS (1994)      $|q-1|<4.1\times 10^{-5}$
      Ertik et al [@ertik2009]                   $U^{\rm (NETD\:III)}$                monopole       $T_{\rm CMB}=2.72842$ K,
     $\alpha$: fractional para.                                                       spec. (1996)   $\alpha -1 = -1.98\times 10^{-5}$

On the other hand, the NASA COBE Collaboration published the residual spectrum computed from the full COBE data in 1996 [@fixen1996]. Hereafter we call it the second residual spectrum. Of course, the second one is different from that in 1994 [@mather1994]. Moreover, the Collaboration released their data on monopole spectrum of CMB on their web site in 2005. We summarize the various sources of the spectra reported by the NASA COBE Collaboration [@mather1994; @fixen1996; @fixsen2002; @nasa2005] in Table \[tab2\]. (See also Refs. [@henry1968; @kompaneets1957; @weymann1965; @zeldovich1969].)

Thus, our purpose of this paper is to analyze the second residual spectrum reported in 1996 and the monopole spectrum released in 2005, by means of Eqs. (\[eq1\]), (\[eq3\]), (\[eq4\]), (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq6\]).

This paper is divided in to following paragraphs. In the second paragraph, we summarize data sources by the NASA COBE Collaboration with an explanation on the chemical potential $\mu$ and the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) effect $y$ [@kompaneets1957; @weymann1965; @zeldovich1969]. In the third paragraph, we analyze the monopole spectrum [@nasa2005] as well as residual spectrum by means of non-extensive thermostatistics.

\[sec2\]Data sources by NASA COBE Coll. – Including chemical potential $\mu$ and Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect $y$ –
===============================================================================================================

We should mention the roles of the dimensionless chemical potential $\mu$ and of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect $y$ [@kompaneets1957; @weymann1965; @zeldovich1969; @sugiyama2001; @durrer2008] introduced in Table \[tab2\]. The former describes the distortion of the Planck distribution for the cosmic microwave background. The latter is reflecting the influence due to scattering of hot electrons with the CMB photons.

   Year  Data                                                          Refs.Estimated values
  ------ ------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
   1994  Partial COBE data                                             [@mather1994] ApJ. 420, 439-444 (1994)
         Residual spectrum (numerical values)                          $T_{\rm CMB} = 2.726\pm 0.010$ K (95% CL)
   1996  Full COBE data                                                [@fixen1996] ApJ. 476, 576-587 (1996)
         $\cdot$ Dipole spectrum (numerical values)                    $T_{\rm amp}=3.372$ mK, and $T_{dipole}=2.717$ K
         $\cdot$ Monopole spectrum (Fig. only)                         $T_{\rm CMB} = 2.728\pm 0.004$ K
         $\cdot$ Residual spectrum (numerical values)                  $|\mu|<9\times 10^{-5}$, $|y|<1.5\times 10^{-5}$ (95% CL)
   2002  Summary of estimated values                                   [@fixsen2002] ApJ. 581, 817-822 (2002)
         ($|\mu|<9\times 10^{-5}$, $|y|<1.5\times 10^{-5}$ (95% CL))   $T_{\rm CMB} = 2.725\pm 0.001$ K
   2005  Monopole spectrum (numerical values)                          [@nasa2005] NASA COBE Web site
         ($T_{\rm CMB} = 2.725\pm 0.001$ K)                            http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product
                                                                       /cobe/firas\_monopole\_get.cfm
   cf.   Our analysis of monopole spectrum [@nasa2005]                 $T_{\rm CMB} = 2.725\pm 4\times 10^{-5}$ K,
         by Eq. (\[eq10\]).                                            $|\mu|<1.4\times 10^{-4}$, $|y|<1.1\times 10^{-5}$

The dimensionless chemical potential $\mu$ introduced in the Planck distribution Eq. (\[eq1\]) is necessary in describing the Compton scattering $\gamma + e^- \rightleftharpoons \gamma + e^-$ in an early Universe, because the number of photons is conserved in that scattering. $$\begin{aligned}
  U_{\rm BE}(T,\,\nu,\,\mu) &\!\!\!=&\!\!\! \frac{8\pi h \nu^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{e^{x+\mu} - 1}\nonumber\\
  &\!\!\! \approx &\!\!\! \frac{8\pi h \nu^3}{c^3}\left[\frac 1{e^{x}-1} - \mu\frac{e^x}{(e^{x}-1)^2}\right],
  \label{eq7}\end{aligned}$$ where BE stands for the Bose-Einstein distribution. This calculation is also performed in Eqs. (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq6\]).

The Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) effect is given as $$\begin{aligned}
  {\rm S-Z\ effect}\ =\
   \frac{C_B\nu^3 yxe^x}{(e^x-1)^2}\left(x\coth \frac x2-4\right)
  \label{eq8},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_B = 8\pi h/c^3$. Moreover, $y$ is the parameter for the inverse Compton scattering, $$\begin{aligned}
  y = \int dl n_e \sigma_T \frac{kT_e}{m_ec^2}
  \label{eq9},\end{aligned}$$ where $l$, $n_e$, $\sigma_T$ and $T_e$ are the size of the high-temperature region in the Universe, the number density of electrons, the cross section of Thomson scattering and temperature of electron, respectively. See footnote [^1].

Their limits ($|\mu|$ and $|y|$) presented in Table \[tab2\] are estimated in terms of the following formula for the description of the monopole spectrum: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{-6mm}  U^{\rm (NASA\ COBE)} \approx U_{\rm BE}
   + \frac{C_B\nu^3 yxe^x}{(e^x-1)^2}\left(x\coth \frac x2-4\right).
  \label{eq10}\end{aligned}$$ From the analysis of the monopole spectrum with Eq. (\[eq10\]), we obtain the following values: $T = 2.7250\pm 4\times 10^{-5}$ K, $\mu = (-2.6\pm 5.6)\times 10^{-5}$ and $y = (1.6\pm 4.8)\times 10^{-6}$ ($\chi^2/NDF = 44.9/41$), i.e., $|\mu| < 1.4\times 10^{-4}$ and $|y| < 1.1\times 10^{-5}$ (95% CL).

The second residual spectrum on the 3 K blackbody radiation (CMB) is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. The utilized values are taken from those in Table \[tab2\].

![\[fig2\]Confirmation of NASA CMB parameters: (a) $\mu = -9\times 10^{-5}$ ($\chi^2/NDF = 78/42$). (b) $y=1.5\times 10^{-5}$ ($\chi^2/NDF = 120/42$). (c) Our calculation by Eq. (\[eq10\]) with $\mu =-2.6\times 10^{-5}$ and $y=1.6\times 10^{-6}$ ($\chi^2/NDF = 51.7/41$).](fig2.eps){height="80mm"}

\[sec3\]Analyses of monopole and residual COBE spectra by means of non-extensive thermostatistics
=================================================================================================

Since the monopole spectrum of CMB is presented in [@nasa2005], we are able to analyze it by means of Eqs. (\[eq1\])–(\[eq3\]). In the present analysis, the temperature can be determined with the CERN MINUIT program. Our results are shown in Figs. \[fig3\] and \[fig4\] and Table \[tab3\].

![\[fig3\]Analysis of monopole spectrum of CMB by means of Eq. (\[eq3\]): $T=2.725$ K, $(q-1) = 1.2\times 10^{-5}$ and $\chi^2/NDF = 48.9/41$. Error bars are 400$\sigma$.](fig3.eps){height="62mm"}

![\[fig4\]Analysis of the 2nd residual spectrum (1996) [@fixen1996]. Dashed line: Eq. (\[eq3\]) with $(q-1) = 1.2\times 10^{-5}$. Dotted line: Eq. (\[eq4\]) with $\delta T = -4.3\times 10^{-5}$ K. Solid line: Sum of them. $\chi^2/NDF = 49.6/41$. Dashed-dotted-dashed line: From limits by Eq. (\[eq5\]), $\mu=0.4\times 10^{-4}$ and $(q-1) = 0.58\times 10^{-5}$ in Table \[tab4\] are chosen. $\chi^2/NDF = 51.6/41$.](fig4.eps){height="80mm"}

  Formulas                                                                                $T$ (K)                          $(q-1)$                           $\delta T$ (K)                $\chi^2$/NDF
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------
  $U^{\rm (NETD\:I)}$                                                               $2.7250\:(\pm 2\times 10^{-5})$   $(-0.5\pm 5.9)\times 10^{-6}$                      —                         45.1/41
                                                                                $<1.23\times 10^{-5}$                                                   (95 % CL)
  $U_{\rm Planck} + \frac{e^x x}{(e^x-1)^2}\frac{\delta T}{T}$                       $2.7250\pm 6.8\times 10^{-4}$                  —                 $8.1\times 10^{-6}\pm 6.8\times 10^{-4}$    (failure)
  $U^{\rm (NETD\:I)}-U_{\rm Planck} + \frac{e^x x}{(e^x-1)^2}\frac{\delta T}{T}$            2.7250 (fixed)            $(-0.2\pm 5.9)\times 10^{-6}$         $(0.1\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-5}$           45.0/41
                                                                                $<1.2\times 10^{-5}$                  $<4.3\times 10^{-5}$              (95 % CL)
  $U^{\rm (NETD\:I)}-U_{\rm Planck}$                                                        2.7250 (fixed)            $(0.6\pm 20.9)\times 10^{-7}$                      —                         45.0/42
                                                                                $<4.2\times 10^{-6}$                                                    (95 % CL)
  $\frac{e^x x}{(e^x-1)^2}\frac{\delta T}{T}$                                               2.7250 (fixed)                          —                       $(0.3\pm 7.6)\times 10^{-6}$           45.0/42
                                                                                $<1.6\times 10^{-5}$              (95 % CL)

It is found that in the analysis of the monopole spectrum of CMB by Eqs. (\[eq1\])–(\[eq4\]) that the temperature $T$ and $\delta T$ in Eq. (\[eq4\]) cannot be determined at the same time. (See the second column in Table \[tab3\].) On the other hand, the non-extensive parameter $(q-1)$ and temperature $T$ are determined simultaneously.

The shape of the solid line (the sum of two magnitudes attributed to $(q-1)$ and $\delta T$) in Fig. \[fig4\] can be compared with that of the S-Z effect in Fig. \[fig2\].

Moreover, we analyze the monopole spectrum by means of Eqs. (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq6\]). In those cases, the CMB temperature $T_{\rm CMB}$, the chemical potential $\mu$, the non-extensive parameter $(q-1)$ and/or the fractional parameter $(\alpha -1)$ are all determined simultaneously. Our results are summarized in Table \[tab4\].

                $T$ (K)                          $\mu$                   $(q-1)$ or $(\alpha-1)$       $\chi^2$/NDF
  -- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------
      $2.72502\pm 3\times 10^{-5}$                 —                 $(-0.53\pm 4.98)\times 10^{-6}$     45.1/41
                                                                          $<1.0\times 10^{-5}$          (95 % CL)
      $2.7250\pm 1\times 10^{-4}$    $(-3.0\pm 6.3)\times 10^{-5}$    $(3.4\pm 9.7)\times 10^{-6}$       44.9/40
                                         $<1.6\times 10^{-4}$             $<2.3\times 10^{-5}$          (95 % CL)
      $2.7250\pm 1\times 10^{-4}$                  —                 $(-0.22\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-5}$      45.1/41
                                                                          $<3.0\times 10^{-5}$          (95 % CL)
      $2.7249\pm 2\times 10^{-4}$    $(-4.4\pm 8.5)\times 10^{-5}$    $(1.5\pm 3.6)\times 10^{-5}$       44.8/40
                                         $<2.1\times 10^{-4}$             $<8.7\times 10^{-5}$          (95 % CL)

Finally, it should be stressed that, when an additional factor, i.e., the temperature fluctuation Eq. (\[eq4\]) is included in Eq. (\[eq5\]), the four parameters cannot be determined as far as the CERN MINUIT program is utilized.

\[sec4\]Concluding remarks and discussions
==========================================

From the above mentioned studies, we summarize several remarks (R1–R3) and, moreover add to the discussions (D1–D4).

[**R1)** ]{} First of all, we analyze the second residual spectrum of 3 K blackbody radiation (CMB) [@fixen1996] by means of Eq. (\[eq3\]) ($U^{\rm (NETD\:I)}$) [@tsallis1995]. For the non-extensive parameter $(q-1)$, we obtain $|q-1|< 1.2\times 10^{-5}\sim 4.2\times 10^{-6}$, which is somewhat smaller than that in Table \[tab1\] (Ref. [@tsallis1995]).

Concerning the temperature fluctuation $|\delta T|$ in Table \[tab3\], we obtain the limit $4.3\times 10^{-5}\sim 1.6\times10^{-5}$ which is approximately 50% smaller than $|\delta T|=0.1$ mK (fixed) in the analysis of the first residual spectrum (1994) in Table \[tab1\] (Ref. [@tsallis1995]).

The non-extensive parameter $|q-1| {\raisebox{-0.55ex}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{\sim}$}}1.2\times 10^{-5}$ and the temperature fluctuation $|\delta T/T|\sim 2.0\times 10^{-5}$ are almost of the same order.

Moreover, it can be said that a role of the sum of the non-extensive parameter $(q-1)$ and the temperature fluctuation $\delta T$ seems to be an effective S-Z effect, because $|q-1|\sim |y|$. (Compare Fig. \[fig4\] with Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig1\].)[^2]

[**R2)** ]{} When we simultaneously take into account of the dimensionless chemical potential $\mu$ [@mather1994; @fixen1996; @zeldovich1969; @sugiyama2001; @durrer2008] and the non-extensive parameter $|q-1|$ [@tsallis1995; @plastino1995; @tirnakli1998] in Eq. (\[eq5\]) ($U^{\rm (NETD\:II)}$), we obtain the following inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
  |\mu| > |q-1|.\end{aligned}$$ The limit $|\mu|<1.6\times 10^{-4}$ is almost of the same order as that of Refs. [@fixen1996; @fixsen2002].

[**R3)** ]{} The role and magnitude of the fractional parameter $(\alpha -1)$ in Eq. (\[eq6\]) ($U^{\rm (NETD\:III)}$) are similar to those of the non-extensive parameter $(q-1)$ in Eq. (\[eq5\]). This is seen in Table \[tab4\]. However, the magnitude of $(\alpha-1)$ is three times larger than that of $(q-1)$.

[**D1)** ]{} It is worthwhile examining the normalization of the Planck distribution in Eq. (\[eq1\]) [@tsallis1995]: Provided that the magnitude of the distortion in the space-time is finite, we can examine it in the monopole spectrum according to Ref. [@tsallis1995] $$\begin{aligned}
  U(T,\: \nu,\: \varepsilon) = \frac{\pi^{d/2}(d-1)dh\nu^d}{\Gamma(d/2+1)c^d(e^x-1)},
  \label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$ where $d=3+\varepsilon$. Our estimated limits are: $T=2.7250\pm 5.0\times 10^{-5}$ and $\varepsilon =(0.3\pm 2.4)\times 10^{-5}$ ($\chi^2/NDF=45.1/41$), i.e., $|\varepsilon|<5.1\times 10^{-5}$ (95 % CL). The limit of $|\varepsilon|<5.1\times 10^{-5}$ is almost the same as that of $|\delta T|<4.3\times 10^{-5}$ in Table \[tab3\].

[**D2)** ]{} In the future, we will elucidate whether or not the non-extensive thermostatistics can describe the CMB spectrum through the quantity $\Delta T(x)/T$ [@durrer2008]. (See footnote \[foot1\].)

[**D3)** ]{} Third we would like to mention the study by Zeng et al. [@zeng2012], in which they calculated the following formula on the basis of the assumption of a Kerr Nonlinear Blackbody (KNB), $$\begin{aligned}
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} U^{\rm (KNB)}(T,\,\nu,\,q)
  {\smash{\mathop{\hbox to 1cm{\rightarrowfill}}\limits^{\ (q-1)\ll 1\ }}}
  \frac{8\pi h\nu^3 v (T)}{c^4}\nonumber\\
  &&\hspace*{-12mm} \times \left[\frac{1}{e^{x_c}-1} +(q-1)\frac{x_ce^{x_c}(2-2e^{x_c}+3x_c+x_ce^{x_c})}{(e^{x_c}-1)^3}\right],\nonumber\\
  \label{eq12}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_c$ is a function of $x' = x/(1+\delta T/T)$, $(q-1)$ and $\gamma = v (T)/c$, An explicit expression is given by Eq. (36) in Ref. [@zeng2012]. See our preliminary analysis [^3].

[**D4)** ]{} The present study is expected to be applicable to other fields, for example, in analyses of the transverse distributions in heavy-ion collisions [@biyajima2005; @adare2010]. Indeed, the determination of the temperatures and the non-extensive parameter $(q-1)$ is also important in describing Pb–Pb collisions at LHC energies [@mizoguchi2012], because the events including a little Big Bang in high energy heavy-ion collisions are expected.

Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================

Authors would sincerely like to thank Prof. J. C. Mather and Prof. D. J. Fixsen for their kindness in communications for NASA COBE data and the method of analysis at an early stage of this investigation. We are also indebted to Dr. J. Kawai for discussion at NEXT2012 held in Nara, Japan. One of the authors (M. B.) would like to thank Prof. N. Sugiyama for insightful conversations.

[00]{}

H. Iwasaki et al., X-Ray Spectrometry [**41**]{}, 125 (2012); Their Eq. (14) should be read as $\frac{8\pi h\nu^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{[1+(q-1)x]^{1/(q-1)}-1}$.

J. Kawai, et al., a poster on “Similarity between the blackbody radiation and Bremsstrahlung radiation” at International Workshop on Anomalous Statistics, Generalized Entropies, and Information Geometry, Mar. 6-10, 2012, Nara, Japan.

C. Tsallis, F. C. Sa Barreto and E. D. Loh, Phys. Rev. [**E52**]{}, 1447 (1995).

A. R. Plastino, A. Plastino and H. Vucetich, Phys. Lett. [**A 207**]{}, 42 (1995). U. Tirnakli, F. Buyukkilic and D. Dermirhan, Phys. Lett. [**A 245**]{}, 62 (1998). C. Tsallis, [*Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Approaching a Complex World*]{}, Springer (2009).

J. C. Mather et al., Astrophys. J. [**420**]{}, 439 (1994).

H. Ertik et al., Physica [**A 388**]{}, 4573 (2009).

N. Suzuki and M. Biyajima, Phys. Rev. E65, 016123 (2002).

D. J. Fixsen et al., Astrophys. J. [**473**]{}, 576 (1996).

D. J. Fixsen and J. C. Mather, Astrophys. J. [**581**]{}, 817 (2002).

COBE/FIRAS CMB monopole spectrum, May 2005,\
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe\
/firas\_monopole\_get.cfm

G. R. Henry, R. B. Feduniak, J. E. Silver and M. A. Peterson, Phys. Rev. [**176**]{}, 1451 (1968).

A. S. Kompaneets, Sov. Phys. -JETP, [**4**]{}, 730 (1957).

R. Weymann, Phys. Fluids, [**8**]{}, 2112 (1965).

Y. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev, Astrophys. Space Sci. [**4**]{}, 301 (1969); R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Astrophys. Space Sci. [**7**]{}, 20 (1970).

N. Sugiyama, [*Expanding Universe and physics of big bang*]{} (in Japanese), (Iwanami-Shoten, Tokyo, 2001).

R. Durrer, [*The Cosmic Microwave Background*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

Q. J. Zeng, Z. Cheng and J. H. Yuan, Eur. Phys. J. D [**66**]{}, 50 (2012).

M. Biyajima [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**40**]{}, 243 (2005); ibid, C [**48**]{}, 597 (2006).

A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 052004 (2011); S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1108**]{}, 086 (2011).

T. Mizoguchi and M. Biyajima, a poster on “Analyses of large $p_T$ distributions at RHIC and LHC energies by means of non-extensive formulae” at International Workshop on Anomalous Statistics, Generalized Entropies, and Information Geometry, Mar. 6-10, 2012, Nara, Japan.

[^1]: \[foot1\] Notice that the S-Z effect is related to the temperature fluctuation $\Delta T(x)$ (a function of $x$) through the Kompaneets equation [@kompaneets1957; @durrer2008]: $$\begin{aligned}
      \delta u = yx^{-2} {\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\left(x^4{\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $U_{\rm Planck}/(8\pi h\nu^3/c^3) = u$. $$\begin{aligned}
      \frac{\Delta T(x)}T = \frac uT\frac{\delta u}u \left(\frac{du}{dT}\right)^{-1}
      = \frac{e^x-1}{xe^x}\frac{\delta u}u
      = -y\left[4-x\coth\frac x2\right].\end{aligned}$$ As we use $U^{\rm (NETD\:II)}/(8\pi h\nu^3/c^3)$ (Eq. (\[eq5\])), we obtain a more complicated expression as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
      &&\hspace*{-14mm}  \frac{\Delta T(x)}T = -y\left[4-x\coth\frac x2\right]
      -y\mu\left[(4-x)\coth\frac x2-x\frac{1+3\coth\frac x2}{e^x-1}\right] \\
      &&\hspace*{-10mm} -\frac{q-1}2 yx\left[8-(5x^2+8x-2)\coth\frac x2 + \frac{4(x^2-1)}{e^x-1} + 6\left(\frac{e^xx}{e^x-1}\right)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$

[^2]: \[foot2\] The following analytic calculation with Eqs. (\[eq4\]) and (\[eq5\]) (instead of Eq. (\[eq3\])) may be possible: $$\begin{aligned}
      \hspace*{-7mm} \frac{e^x x}{(e^x-1)^2}\frac{\delta T}{T} + \frac{q-1}2\frac{e^xx^2}{(e^x-1)^2} &\!\!\!\!\!=&\!\!\!\!\! \frac{q-1}2\frac{e^xx}{(e^x-1)^2}\left[x+\left(\frac 2{q-1}\right)\frac{\delta T}{T}\right],\\
      &\!\!\!\!\!\approx&\!\!\!\!\! [{\rm an\ effective\ (S-Z)\ effect}].\end{aligned}$$ as $\delta T$ is assigned to be negative.

[^3]: \[foot3\] A preliminary analysis of the monopole spectrum by Eq. (\[eq12\]) is made by the present authors: $|q-1|<1\times 10^{-5}$ , $T = 2.7250\pm 3\times 10^{-4}$ K and $|\delta T|<6\times 10^{-4}$ K, provided that $\gamma = 1.0000\pm 0.0001$. The CERN MINUIT program cannot precisely determine them, because the number of parameters is large (4).