Kinda trying to piece some ideas together here. If there's theory on this, please send it.
For example, the George Floyd protests were very violent by U.S. standards but we never got to the point of, say, a massacre on the White House lawn. Instead, it was mostly tear gas, police brutality, and the media apparatus quickly countering with propaganda.
If a movement can't be taken down with propaganda (i.e.; :vote: and it will all go away), then the state will need to use more brutal force to maintain itself, correct?
Maybe this is cringe, but I really believe it may be ilustrative: There is a common theme in Sun Tzu's writing that it is always best to win first before executing the action of conflict. In the sense that by already having the absolute advantage and ability to disable your opponent, you are able to expend the fewest resources and subdue them without much bloodshed. Ok. If we apply this in the other direction, we can say that it tracks pretty closely with your hypothesis, that the gov't is able to use less force when more powerful. We can then project from this that yes, if the position of the gov't were worse, they would be forced to use more violent and desperate measures to achieve victory.