According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production
should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace,
rather than being centralized under the control of a few state
bureaucrats (some forms of socialism) or wealthy private individuals
(capitalism). Distributism has often been described as a third way of
economic order between socialism and capitalism. However, some have
seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in
the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and
solidarity (these being built into financially independent local

– Third Way

The Third Way,  is a centrist political philosophy of governance that
embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies. The Third
Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic
governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education,
and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and
governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been described
as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its proponents.[2] One
of its central aims is to protect the modern welfare state through
reforms that maintain its economic integrity.[3]

Past invocations of a political ‘third way’ have included the Fabian
Socialism, Distributism, Keynesian economics, Franklin Roosevelt’s New
Deal, and Harold Macmillan’s 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[4] A
“Third Way” approach has been adopted by some social democrats and
social liberals in many Western liberal democracies.[5] While it was
pioneered in the 1980s in Australia by the Hawke/Keating Labor
governments,[6] the most recent prominent examples are the Clinton
Administration in the United States as well as presidential candidates
Hillary Clinton[7] and Barack Obama,[8].


Nah dari yang saya baca di teks teks kuno seperti Ekonomi Terpimpin ,
Persoalan Ekonomi Indonesia dan Portrait Of Patriot–Hatta by Alm.
Prof. Deliar Noer, idenya Bung Hatta persis seperti distrubutism
dimana tidak ada pemusatan ekonomi dan politik yang dipegang oleh
orang atau kelompok (oligarki dan plutokrasi) seperti yang terjadi di
Indonesia kala ini.

Ini ada sedikit jawaban Hatta terhadap Laissez Faire dan hal2 lainya
yg berhubungan dengan ekonomi (Islam) :

Q: Bagaimana jadinya teori ekonomi Laissez Faire dalam prakteknya ?

Hatta: Itu semua teorinya.  Dalam praktek tidak banyak daripada
dunia impian Adam Smith itu yang terjadi. Semua orang keluar mengadu
peruntungan dengan jalan `permainan dari pada tenaga masyrakat’.
Tetapi bagaimana sifat merdekanya ? itulah yang tidak ada !

Tindakan merdeka dan persaingan merdeka mungkin bisa baik hasilnya
apabila subjek-subjek ekonomi itu kira kira sama kuat kedudukanya.
sama sama tjerdik dan sama sama mempunyai kepandaian. Itulah yang
tidak ada dari awal.

Seperti disebut tadi, kaum buruh tidak mempunyai kekuatan dengan
adanya larangan berkoalisi sedangkan kaum kapitalis jang dari semua
sudah kuat karena memiliki alat2 penghasil dapat kebabasan menyusun
kekuatanya. Rakjat banyak jang hidup dari sehari ke sehari dari
tangan kemelut dihalau masuk ke arena perjuangan kelas sosial yang
sedih dengan tidak ada pertahanan. Akibatnya kehancuran hidup dan

Maka karena itu jang kaya bertambah kaja dengan laissez faire ini
sedangkan yang miskin tambah melarat. The rule of the market
menghendaki the rule of the game. Yang pertama diadakan, yang
kemudian tidak diperbuat sehingga permainan merdeka daripada tentaga
masyrakat sebenarnya tidak jalan. The rule of the game itu rupanya
yang dikehendaki kemudian hari oleh gerakan neo-liberalisme.

Q: Dr. Hatta, what should be the basis of Indonesia economy ?

“The basis of Islamic thought,” he said, “is in the direction of
socialism, and it would be possible in Indonesia to make a working
synthesis” of Islam and socialism, with individuals following Islam
and socialism together.

He went on to observe that “social justice and
the brotherhood of people are the pillars of Islam :

if I have only one
loaf of bread for today and tomorrow, I must give half to a dying man;
that is the economic basis of Islam.”

As we discussed the situation further, he made clear that what he
believed best suited to Indonesia
would be a mixed economy with a large socialist sector, a substantial
cooperative sector–primarily at the rural level–and a limited
capitalist sphere whereby small business would continue to coexist
with these larger sectors. He did not think it would be necessary to
develop “a capitalist middle class before a basically socialist
society could be established, or even in order to have the necessary
administrative personnel to man the apparatus of a socialist society.”

Most suitable for Indonesia, he believed, would be a mixed, but
heavily socialist economy, resting on democratic political foundations.