Everyone talks about MLK, but no one points out that people were willing to listen because Malcom X was a looming threat if MLK failed. Yes vote, but the threat of violence is what makes voting a delighted option. That's why protests exist. They are reminders that peace is a choice.

Violent revolution has merit when peaceful means break down. The rise of the guillotine jokes are the first time that people are losing faith in the peaceful option. We should hope that our leaders don't make most of use disillusioned with the idea of a peaceful transfer of power.

Violence has been very productive for the ruling class. Voting sounds nice but evidence abounds about the mendacity of politicians and their willingness to subvert or overrule voters' preferences if sufficient money or status is to be had. You can say 'well vote those people out if they ignore the voters' but once a new reality has set in the politicians often gainan incumbency advantageor have lined up a cushy post-retirement gig.

Violence is counterproductive but the threat of violence keeps society orderly and in line and not turning entirely to shit. If you disagree, I am happy to see your support for the abolishment of police, private security, and other professional sources of violence, etc. we can then see how well the rich will fend for themselves once no longer under the protection of either a state-sponsored threat of violence, or a private, mercenary one.

I'd rather not live in a society where the only things I own are things I can physically protect with my own two hands, but it's certainly a thought experiment.

Anyways.

Without the threat of violence, a small fraction of the population would be utter turds to everyone else all the time.

When they take away non-violent means of curtailing their behaviour... The consequences are hardly difficult to predict.