Even revolutionary variants don’t necessarily need violence. It’s certainly a high potential in revolution, but not a guarantee. This isn’t just hypothetical, all or nearly all of us on here have witnessed revolutions which didn’t employ violence (though they certainly endured it).

This is true. Revolutions need not be violent. It's simply the case that the vast majority are. Revolutionary socialism does not reject revolution simply because it may be violent. Rather, it accepts violence as a possible necessary means to an end.

Agreed. But ~some variants of socialism consider officially blessed outlets for change insufficient and accept that violence may be a part of circumventing their limitations~ is a very far leap from ~socialism is inherently violent~.

Edit to add: it’s probably helpful in illustrating the difference to remove political ideology and highlight other movements which have drawn similar conclusions. As an example, in the Civil Rights era, many people trying to effect change according to officially blessed outlets were sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, attacked with dogs, even murdered. Often in plain sight, sometimes symbolically as a warning to others who might follow their lead. Others drew the conclusion that the officially blessed outlets for the change they sought were a facade, that they’d be similarly violently excluded from shaping the world they lived in. Some of them determined that the only way they could achieve any kind of justice was to reserve the right to use force to achieve it.

Were they inherently violent?

Yes, that was my actual point:

> After a socialist regime is established, however, I know of no form of socialism that encapsulates violence as a core concept.

Oh, I’m sorry. I meant to say explicitly my quarrel wasn’t with you. I was just expanding on it for anyone else reading through the thread.