> According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right, and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.

> Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Maybe, but I'm not sure Marx understood that capitalism would have such a potential for wealth distribution. Today, you can buy a 3D printer for 1/20th of the median US salary. You can buy a super computer that fits in your pocket for 1/50th of it. You can call your broker and buy an ownership stake in Apple, Exxon Mobil, or General Electric for smaller fractions than that.

Capitalism has actually provided far more avenues for laborers to own the means of production than any communist revolution has.

As automation gets better and cheaper, there will still be jobs for everyone - they'll just be performed by the robots they purchased for 1/10th, 1/20th or 1/50th of the median wage.

You could buy bits of capital in the 1890s as well, and technology was advancing at a breakneck pace then too, but society still became a quasi-feudal state. Some form of wealth redistribution will be necessary to ensure people's freedom, the tricky bit is how to do it without unduly stifling innovation and investment.

Lately I've really been grappling with how to accomplish this, and it is a Very Hard problem.