>its not the specific distribution that is exceptionable, but the _form_
>of the distribution, ie that it takes the form of an alien force over
>people, coercing them. (here I take the surplus to be capital, a social
>relation).
Point of clarification. Are you saying that what is exceptionable is the specific form of distribution, surplus value, not the form of production? What about Marx's argument that the form of production determines the form of distribution?
I think I am right in saying that the problem Marx identified was not one of *distribution* (still less *re-distribution*), but rather capitalism's inability to direct *production* solely towards human needs.
>Marx's argument was that it is
>the operation of the law of value that guarantees the monopoly over the
>means of production.
The other way round surely? It is the class monopoly of the means of production which guarantees the operation of the law of value. Marx argued that the law of value exerted an external coercive influence on human affairs under capitalism, in a way similar to a law of nature. But the "law" of value does not actually have an existence separate from or prior to, as a law of nature does, the historically specific actions of human beings in a capitalist society.
-- Lew