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?
I think it's a good model to say that the government suppresses revolutionary movements with a combination of propaganda and violence. The better the propaganda, the less violence is needed. The stronger the movements, the more violence (or propaganda) is needed.