In a world context marked by the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Palestine, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the emergence of a new Right, the debates on war and imperialism, notions that seemed to have been filed in the drawer of memories by a large part of critical theories, are coming back to the forefront. But what do we mean when we speak of imperialism, and what is the relationship between imperialism and capitalism? What is the centrality of the anti-imperialist struggle for socialist strategy in the 21st century? On all these issues, there are important divisions on the Left. In what follows, we will focus in particular on some recent debates. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the Marxist theory of imperialism is obsolete, either because of the transformations of capitalism at the global level, or because it has always been wrong. For Vivek Chibber, editor of Catalyst Magazine and other authors of Jacobin Magazine, it isn’t necessary to build an “anti-imperialist Left,” but the key is to develop “class struggle at home” around “bread and butter” demands, namely, the elementary economic demands of the working class. From another angle, there are those who emphasize the inequalities between the “Global South” and the “Global North” while considering China and Russia as new axes of support for the struggle against imperialism. While the former seeks to recreate a kind of “welfare chauvinism,” the latter “Global South” positions denounce Western imperialism, but align themselves with other powers with strong imperialist traits. In the following, we will address some of these debates, in a counterpoint with Vivek Chibber and John Bellamy Foster. The first position is the one defended by the editors of Jacobin magazine in the United States, a magazine linked to the DSA (Democratic Socialist of America). In several articles, such as here and here , Matías Maiello polemicizes with the recovery of Karl Kautsky’s work by these authors and points out that there is no struggle for socialism without anti-imperialism. The debate is not secondary. In an interview published in the Jacobin Review , Vivek Chibber argued that the theory of imperialism developed by Lenin in his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” was wrong. For Chibber, as far as this question is concerned, the “Leninist legacy produced much damage” in the Marxist left. His arguments can be synthesized as follows: 1) imperialism must be distinguished from capitalism, to confuse them would be a serious mistake; 2) the idea that capitalism entered a “new stage” characterized by monopolies is wrong; 3) the thesis that the confrontation between “rich countries” would be a constant in the following decades was “spectacularly wrong”; 4) Kautsky was right with his theory of ultra-imperialism when he “predicted that what there would be would be cooperation between capitalist countries, not competition”; 5) Lenin’s errors led to a mistaken position on “bourgeois revolutions” in countries like China and others, which gave rise to support for “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist” bourgeois nationalist sectors; and 6) there never existed a “labor aristocracy” in the central countries. Chibber artificially separates imperialism from capitalism , as if the former referred only to the “aggressions” of some nations over others, and the latter to economic or class relations. On that basis, he concludes that anti-imperialism means nothing more than “collective action in your country against militarism and aggression by your government against other countries, and convincing your working class that its material interests are tied to the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of its own state.” We will return to these conclusions, but first let us address their foundations. The Marxist theory of imperialism, developed by Lenin, Luxemburg, and Trotsky, among others, is precisely counter to the idea that imperialism was a “militaristic excess” of some states, which could be contained by diplomatic means, as if wars between powers or colonial plunder were not inscribed in the tendencies of capitalism itself. In this sense, taking up the studies of Hilferding and other Marxist authors on financial capital, Lenin defined that the transformation of “free competition” capitalism into monopoly capitalism had given rise to a new stage of development of the capitalist system, its imperialist stage. And that this opened the way to an epoch marked by the tendency to wars, crises, and also revolutions. Chibber, like other authors, centered his criticisms of Lenin’s theory of imperialism on the definitions of his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” focused above all on the economic dynamics of monopoly capitalism and on the inter-imperialist contradictions. While authors like Bellamy Foster rightly point out that to “understand the complex theoretical and historical issues involved” in this theory, one must put this work “in relation to his entire body of writings on imperialism from 1916-1920,” where the political elements and the question of national oppression have much more weight. In the Second International, the debate on imperialism divided the waters between Marxists and revisionists. At the beginning of the 20th century, the sector headed by Bernstein came to propose that there was a progressive, civilizing colonialism, and that there could even be a “socialist colonialism.” These positions were not in the majority and were rejected by different socialist congresses, which approved internationalist resolutions in the face of the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. At that time, Kautsky was still in the left-wing of the International. However, the chauvinist positions were becoming increasingly more pervasive in the leadership of the social democratic parties, gaining a foothold among the trade union bureaucracies and the labor aristocracy. From 1910 onwards, Kautsky moved towards centrist positions that diluted the struggle against imperialism and conciliated with the reformist and social chauvinist wing. Kautsky–as Chibber now proposes–in his analysis of imperialism, separated militarist tendencies from economic tendencies. He argued that capitalist expansion into new regions could be carried out by violent as well as peaceful means. He asserted that “imperialist methods,” which involved clash and confrontation between powers, were more a hindrance than a foothold for capitalist development, so that the capitalists themselves would seek ways to “coordinate” on an international scale. On this basis, Kautsky formulated the theory of “ultra-imperialism.” Just as capitalism had given rise to monopolies, these could give rise to the “cartelization” of the foreign policy of the states. That is to say, a phase that would not be marked by geopolitical and military confrontation between powers, but by their unification in a “Holy Alliance.” Remarkably, the article in which Kautsky formulated these ideas was published in September 1914, a few weeks after the outbreak of the First World War. We need hardly recall that what followed was not anything like greater concord among the states, but several years of imperialist carnage. The brutal tendencies towards military clashes between powers would explode again on a new scale in the Second World War. Yet, even after the whole 20th century passed with two world wars and was plagued by regional wars, Chibber affirms that Lenin was wrong, since from the 1950s onwards, the world had become “more Kautskyan.” However, in the postwar years, what there was was not an “ultra-imperialist” tendency toward harmony among the powers, but a “ Pax Americana” imposed after the defeat of the Axis powers (with the end of the war being a huge demonstration of imperial power with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The post-war “boom,” which followed the previous enormous destruction of productive forces, was not the beginning of a new “ultra-imperialist” epoch as Kautsky announced. The pact with the Stalinist bureaucracy at Yalta and Potsdam allowed imperialism to avoid the danger of revolution in the capitalist center for an entire period (not so in the periphery) and to postpone the confrontations between powers. But that would not last forever. That post-war order was questioned on all its flanks at the end of the 1960s, with a profound workers’ and popular upsurge in the central countries, the capitalist periphery, and the countries behind the “iron curtain” (which was combined with the economic crisis from 1973 onwards). The defeats and deviations of these processes gave way to the neoliberal period, the leap in the internationalization of value chains, and the formation of an Atlanticist global order from which all major powers benefited for several decades. Now, was this the proof that Kautsky was right, that as a result of the internationalization of capital a harmonization of the interests of the powers had been achieved in an “ultra-imperialism”? The disputes between the imperialist states were partially suspended during the period of “globalization,” even with the formation of supranational structures such as the WTO, the European Union, or free trade agreements between regional blocs. But that does not mean that contradictions were eliminated. Chibber confuses here American hegemony (undisputed for a long period) with the historical overcoming of the imperialist epoch. And although the tendencies to clash between powers were largely contained since the second post-war period (there was no new world war), the current crisis of the neoliberal order poses its actualization in a violent way. Chibber’s timing for the defense of the thesis of “ultra-imperialism” does not seem much better than that of Kautsky. At present, it is not difficult to recognize the leap towards greater conflagrations between rival powers, with the return of war to European territory. Mainstream analysts write in the latest Foreign Affairs Magazine about a dynamic towards what they call a “total war,” with Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency adding uncertainty to the global outlook. Imperialism’s warmongering tendencies are also on display in the Middle East, with the brutal genocide in Palestine, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s escalation with Iran. In Gaza, Netanyahu has deployed old-school colonial violence with state-of-the-art weapons provided by the U.S., Germany, and others. Now, Israel’s massacres and the complicity of Western powers have generated a wave of outrage and solidarity with the Palestinian cause not seen for decades. In the streets and on university campuses in the U.S., UK, France, and Spain, a massive youth movement emerged in support of the Palestinian people and against Zionist crimes. Hundreds of thousands of young people point the finger at their own imperialist governments as accomplices of genocide. In the United States, this led many to break politically with the Democratic Party and “ Genocide Joe,” and refuse to support Kamala Harris as the “lesser evil,” as Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez called for. Those who believe that the socialist Left in the U.S. can recreate itself with one foot in and one foot out of the Democratic Party, like Jacobin ‘s editors and DSA leaders suggest, are opposed to fighting for an anti-imperialist Left. The theory of ultra-imperialism served Kautsky to reconcile positions with the chauvinist wing of social democracy, which closed ranks with its own bourgeoisie in the war. It enables Chibber to continue to harbor illusions that the Democrats can be a progressive alternative, should they decide to take up the “bread and butter” agenda to seduce the working class. Let us now return to Chibber’s conclusions about what “anti-imperialism” means. In the interview with Jacobin , he states that it would be to push for “collective action in your country against your government’s militarism and aggression against other countries, and convincing your working class that their material interests are bound up with the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of their own state.” In other words, it would be a matter of demanding, on a national level, that less money be allocated to military budgets, to be reinvested in schools and hospitals. This policy, while partially correct, when considered in isolation from a consistent anti-imperialist program, has enormous contradictions. In the first place, it seeks to obtain partial improvements for a sector of the working class in the central countries, without questioning the imperialist oppression of the semicolonial and dependent peoples. In the United States, paradoxically, it has been Donald Trump who has questioned the billionaire funds destined to the war in Ukraine, demagoguing that these funds should be dedicated to “making America great again.” Second, he generates illusions that militaristic tendencies and greater clashes between powers can be moderated with a little union pressure. And, finally, he believes that all of this would be possible with a Democratic government, if it were to adopt some old-fashioned social-democratic policies. In a recent article, John Bellamy Foster puts forward in a very suggestive way that: It is a sign of the depth of the structural crisis of capital in our time that not since the onset of the First World War and the dissolution of the Second International — during which nearly all of the European social democratic parties joined the inter-imperialist war on the side of their respective nation-states — has the split on imperialism on the left taken on such serious dimensions. He finds that “the gap between the views of imperialism held by the Western left and those of revolutionary movements in the Global South is wider than at any time in the last century.” He goes on to list some of the (contradictory) ideas that characterize what he defines as a Eurocentric Left. These include the denial of national oppression by imperialism and the idea that imperialism “is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another” as we have already seen in the case of Chibber. This is also often accompanied by the justification of a “humanitarian imperialism aimed at protecting human rights.” He also notes the idea that “imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalized transnational capitalism,” or, in other occasions, the idea that “economic imperialism has been ‘reversed’ with the Global East/South now exploiting the Global West/North.” In the article, Bellamy Foster traces various debates on the Marxist Left about imperialism in the 20th century, from the Second and Third Internationals, to the elaborations of dependency theory, world-system theory, the cultural turn of the post-colonial left, and the more contemporary debates on global value chains and uneven development. He rightly points out that at the heart of all Eurocentric positions is the negation of Engels’ and Lenin’s theses on the labor aristocracy. In response, he responds that “existence of a labor aristocracy at some level is difficult to deny on any realistic basis.” As an example, he points out that the AFL-CIO leadership has historically been linked to the military-industrial complex in the United States and “has worked with the CIA throughout the post-Second World War era to repress progressive unions throughout the Global South, backing the most exploitative regimes.” As part of the “abandonment of the theory of imperialism on the left,” Bellamy Foster mentions among others, Empire by Toni Negri and Michael Hardt; David Harvey’s elaborations on the so-called accumulation by dispossession or the positions of Vivek Chibber, to which we refer. In particular, he argues that Chibber’s attack on the concept of monopoly capital shows “his ignorance of the enormous growth in recent decades in the concentration and centralization of capital associated with successive merger waves, leading to the continuing augmentation of monopoly power, along with the centralization of finance.” Now, while Chibber and other sectors of the Left deny the existence of imperialism from an abstract definition of class, Bellamy Foster tends to make the national question absolute in the periphery, diluting the struggle for class independence in what he calls “the Global South.” Vivek Chibber considers that the “Leninist legacy” has been detrimental to the Left, because in the case of revolutions in the periphery it meant support for the national bourgeoisies, with the idea of “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist revolutions.” One of the examples he gives is the support of the Chinese Communist Party to Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist party, the Kuomintang, during the Revolution of 1925-28. However, what he omits is that there was no continuity between the Marxist theses on imperialism and the policy of Stalinism: the latter took up Menshevik stagism, subordinating the workers vanguard to the leadership of the reactionary Chinese bourgeoisie, which led to the defeat of the revolution. The important lessons on the Chinese Revolution and the opposition to that stagist orientation were the basis for the generalization of the Theory of the Permanent Revolution by Leon Trotsky. For his part, Bellamy Foster correctly questions Chibber for denying the national oppression imposed by imperialism on the “third world” or “Global South.” However, he does so by aligning himself politically with the national bourgeoisies (as in his defense of Chavism) and with China, which is another bloc with a strong dynamic of imperialist development. On this particular issue, he deploys several arguments. On the one hand, he argues that it is wrong to present “the People’s Republic of China as an imperialist (and straightforwardly capitalist) power in the same sense as the United States, disregarding the role of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the whole Chinese road to development, as well as processes of unequal exchange.” He goes on to state that China’s foreign policy is geared towards “promoting the self-determination of nations, while opposing bloc geopolitics and military interventions. Beijing’s threefold Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative together constitute the leading proposals for world peace in our era.” For Bellamy Foster it would be necessary to stand politically with the “underdeveloped nations” (he includes China among them) against imperialism. He points out that this would not mean “abandoning the class struggle in the core capitalist nations themselves, quite the contrary.” But what about class struggle in the nations of the “global south”? What he proposes is a new stagism of the 21st century, as if imperialism could be confronted without fighting the national bourgeoisies in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It is as if there were a progressive way out of imperialist warmongering, on the basis of the proposals “for world peace” of the authoritarian Chinese government. A Left that leaves aside the struggle against imperialism, as Chibber proposes, is evidently contrary to the increasingly warlike tendencies of the world situation and also of the international movement in solidarity with Palestine. But the struggle against imperialism and capitalism are intertwined, so it is not possible to recreate a socialist and anti-imperialist perspective without class independence. To deepen these debates seems more and more necessary. Originally published in Spanish in La Izquierda Diario . Translated by Sou Mi. Capitalism China Imperialism Karl Kautsky
WINNIPEG — Kyle Walters doesn’t believe losing a third consecutive Grey Cup means the Winnipeg Blue Bombers’ roster should be blown up. The CFL club’s general manager told reporters at his year-end availability Tuesday that reaching a fifth straight championship game by overcoming lots of injuries was a big accomplishment. Even before Winnipeg’s recent 41-24 Grey Cup loss to the Toronto Argonauts, Walters said he was looking forward to next season. “I was excited for next year based on what I'm looking at, compared to years past, where we've got more young guys that have contributed that are under contract," he said. "We've got more young players in the building. So, the idea of, ‘This is the end of the road. The team is in a free-for-all downward,’ I don’t think is accurate. "We have a good group of guys and we were in a one-point (Grey Cup) game with 10 minutes left ... before things went downhill.” The Blue Bombers started the season 0-4, moved to 2-6 and finished 11-7 to claim the West Division title. Star receiver Dalton Schoen, veteran linebacker Adam Bighill and backup quarterback Chris Streveler all suffered season-ending injuries and are pending free agents. Negotiating with the team’s 27 unsigned players could be impacted by moves across the league among coaches, personnel staff and players such as quarterbacks, Walters said. The Bombers have given permission for offensive coordinator Buck Pierce to speak to the B.C. Lions and Edmonton Elks about those teams’ vacant head-coaching jobs, he said. Walters also revealed the Ottawa Redblacks were given the go-ahead to talk to Richie Hall about their defensive coordinator vacancy. Hall was a Winnipeg defensive assistant this season after Jordan Younger took over from him as defensive coordinator. Walters said the Bombers received permission to speak to Lions offensive coordinator Jordan Maksymic in case Pierce leaves. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats have already been given the OK to talk to Winnipeg assistant general managers Danny McManus and Ted Goveia about the Ticats’ GM opening. “You're hesitant to have too much conversation with people who may not be in the organization next year, so it's just been me and (head coach) Mike (O’Shea) in this moment huddled together and talking about next year,” Walters said. He said an NFL team had asked Tuesday morning to work out one Blue Bomber, but he didn’t reveal the player’s name in case he wasn’t aware of the request yet. The Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup in 2019 and ’21, but lost 28-24 to the Montreal Alouettes last year and 24-23 to Toronto in 2022. Winnipeg re-signed placekicker Sergio Castillo last week. Walters said he’d like to have deals done with three or four main players before the end of the year. The team has some up-and-coming young players inked for next year, and injuries gave others valuable experience on both sides of the ball, Walters said. Receivers such as rookie Ontaria Wilson (1,026 yards receiving in 18 games) and Keric Wheatfall (273 yards in seven games) are signed through next season. “The experience that they got was invaluable,” Walters said. Re-signing players who missed time because of injuries can get tricky. “Organizationally, can we approach (their agents) and say, 'Well, your guy was hurt, he should come back for less money?’” Walters said. “Generally, they don't view it like that. They view that they'll be back 100 per cent.” One question mark is the backup to starting quarterback Zach Collaros, who suffered a deep cut to the index finger of his throwing hand late in the third quarter of the Grey Cup. Collaros got five stitches and numbing agent applied to his finger. He returned with a bandage on it, but admitted he had a hard time gripping the ball. “We'll have to find out who our offensive coordinator is first,” Walters said when asked who might be Collaros’s backup. Terry Wilson, who briefly replaced Collaros in the Grey Cup, and Jake Dolegala are signed for next year. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 26, 2024. Judy Owen, The Canadian Press10 hot-ticket gifts we predict will sell out on Black Friday 2024Cristiano Ronaldo To Collaborate With MrBeast on YouTube to ‘Break the Internet’
Holiday shopping doesn't have to be stressful
Marjorie Taylor Greene diversifies portfolio with multiple stock purchases and US Treasury Bill
Information on these pages contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Markets and instruments profiled on this page are for informational purposes only and should not in any way come across as a recommendation to buy or sell in these assets. You should do your own thorough research before making any investment decisions. FXStreet does not in any way guarantee that this information is free from mistakes, errors, or material misstatements. It also does not guarantee that this information is of a timely nature. Investing in Open Markets involves a great deal of risk, including the loss of all or a portion of your investment, as well as emotional distress. All risks, losses and costs associated with investing, including total loss of principal, are your responsibility. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FXStreet nor its advertisers. The author will not be held responsible for information that is found at the end of links posted on this page. If not otherwise explicitly mentioned in the body of the article, at the time of writing, the author has no position in any stock mentioned in this article and no business relationship with any company mentioned. The author has not received compensation for writing this article, other than from FXStreet. FXStreet and the author do not provide personalized recommendations. The author makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of this information. FXStreet and the author will not be liable for any errors, omissions or any losses, injuries or damages arising from this information and its display or use. Errors and omissions excepted. The author and FXStreet are not registered investment advisors and nothing in this article is intended to be investment advice.'Ideal choice': Trump aide suggests this controversial state AG could be pick to lead DOJ– As previously noted , CM Punk made his WWE TV return last night on WWE SmackDown. Paul Heyman revealed Punk as the fifth member of The OG Bloodline’s team against The Bloodline in the men’s WarGames match at WWE Survivor Series: WarGames 2024. SmackDown Superstar Carmelo Hayes later noted via social media that he ran into CM Punk backstage and received some great advice from the legendary wrestler. Carmelo Hayes wrote , “Ran into Cm Punk. Just gave me the best advice to never lose a backstage fight again #SmackDown” You can view his comments below: Ran into Cm Punk. Just gave me the best advice to never lose a backstage fight again #SmackDown — Carmelo Hayes (@Carmelo_WWE) November 23, 2024
A judge on Monday granted a request by prosecutors to dismiss the election subversion case against Donald Trump because of a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to the request by Special Counsel Jack Smith to dismiss the case against the president-elect "without prejudice," meaning it could potentially be revived after Trump leaves the White House four years from now. "Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here," Chutkan said, adding in the ruling that "the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office." Trump, 78, was accused of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden and removing large quantities of top secret documents after leaving the White House, but the cases never came to trial. Smith also moved on Monday to drop his appeal of the dismissal of the documents case filed against the former president in Florida. That case was tossed out earlier this year by a Trump-appointed judge on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed. The special counsel paused the election interference case and the documents case this month after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 presidential election. Smith cited the long-standing Justice Department policy of not indicting or prosecuting a sitting president in his motions to have the cases dismissed. "The Government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed," Smith said in the filing with Chutkan. "But the circumstances have." "It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President," Smith said. "As a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated." In a separate filing, Smith said he was withdrawing his appeal of the dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump but pursuing the case against his two co-defendants, Trump valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. More from this section Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the cases were "empty and lawless, and should never have been brought." "Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party's fight against their Political Opponent, ME," he said. "Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before." Trump was accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding -- the session of Congress called to certify Biden's win, which was violently attacked on January 6, 2021 by a mob of the then-president's supporters. Trump was also accused of seeking to disenfranchise US voters with his false claims that he won the 2020 election. The former and incoming president also faces two state cases -- in New York and Georgia. He was convicted in New York in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election to stop her from revealing an alleged 2006 sexual encounter. However, Judge Juan Merchan has postponed sentencing while he considers a request from Trump's lawyers that the conviction be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court ruling in July that an ex-president has broad immunity from prosecution. In Georgia, Trump faces racketeering charges over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results in the southern state, but that case will likely be frozen while he is in office. cl/smsBetty White Forever: New stamp will honor the much-beloved 'Golden Girls' actorApple readies more conversational Siri in bid to catch up in AI
M. Jodi Rell, who became Connecticut governor after her predecessor resigned, dies at 78Banque Cantonale Vaudoise increased its stake in Playtika Holding Corp. ( NASDAQ:PLTK – Free Report ) by 142.9% during the third quarter, Holdings Channel.com reports. The fund owned 29,875 shares of the company’s stock after buying an additional 17,574 shares during the period. Banque Cantonale Vaudoise’s holdings in Playtika were worth $237,000 at the end of the most recent quarter. Other hedge funds and other institutional investors also recently made changes to their positions in the company. CWM LLC lifted its stake in shares of Playtika by 65.1% in the third quarter. CWM LLC now owns 85,971 shares of the company’s stock worth $681,000 after acquiring an additional 33,902 shares during the period. Assenagon Asset Management S.A. bought a new stake in Playtika in the second quarter worth approximately $744,000. Russell Investments Group Ltd. increased its holdings in Playtika by 0.8% in the first quarter. Russell Investments Group Ltd. now owns 184,926 shares of the company’s stock worth $1,304,000 after purchasing an additional 1,495 shares in the last quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. increased its holdings in Playtika by 2.2% in the first quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. now owns 3,566,049 shares of the company’s stock worth $25,141,000 after purchasing an additional 76,948 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Quest Partners LLC increased its holdings in Playtika by 705.5% in the third quarter. Quest Partners LLC now owns 161,249 shares of the company’s stock worth $1,277,000 after purchasing an additional 141,231 shares in the last quarter. 11.94% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Playtika Trading Down 0.8 % PLTK stock opened at $8.53 on Friday. The stock’s fifty day simple moving average is $7.93 and its two-hundred day simple moving average is $7.89. Playtika Holding Corp. has a 1-year low of $6.25 and a 1-year high of $9.23. The stock has a market cap of $3.18 billion, a P/E ratio of 14.71, a P/E/G ratio of 2.17 and a beta of 0.85. Playtika Dividend Announcement The company also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Friday, January 3rd. Stockholders of record on Friday, December 20th will be given a dividend of $0.10 per share. The ex-dividend date is Friday, December 20th. This represents a $0.40 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 4.69%. Playtika’s dividend payout ratio is presently 68.97%. Wall Street Analyst Weigh In A number of equities research analysts have weighed in on the company. Macquarie reiterated a “neutral” rating and issued a $7.00 target price on shares of Playtika in a report on Friday, November 8th. Roth Mkm lifted their target price on Playtika from $8.00 to $9.00 and gave the stock a “neutral” rating in a report on Friday, November 8th. Finally, Wedbush reiterated an “outperform” rating and issued a $11.50 target price on shares of Playtika in a report on Thursday, September 19th. One research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, six have issued a hold rating and three have given a buy rating to the company. Based on data from MarketBeat, the company presently has a consensus rating of “Hold” and an average target price of $9.00. Get Our Latest Research Report on Playtika Playtika Profile ( Free Report ) Playtika Holding Corp., together with its subsidiaries, develops mobile games in the United States, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia pacific, and internationally. The company owns a portfolio of casual and social casino-themed games. It distributes its games to the end customer through various web and mobile platforms and direct-to-consumer platforms. Further Reading Want to see what other hedge funds are holding PLTK? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Playtika Holding Corp. ( NASDAQ:PLTK – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for Playtika Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Playtika and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
Petition demanding general election hits 100,000– humiliated Keir Starmer must now respondNone