A common dialectical cliche in these days is that if you use violence, it'll come back and haunt you even stronger. That is, the use of violent actions is represented as a somehow self-defeating, and hence, irrational, undertaking. As with most dialectical quips, the causative mechanism and logic is not very clear, and I think history refutes it by mass of evidence: 1. Let's face it: Slave societies were based on terror and violence, but NONE of them ever fell by massive slave uprisings. The rebellions that are recorded are rare and utterly pitiful, never gained much momentum, and were crushed. Nor did they seriously affect the endurance of the slave system itself. A leader like Spartacus saw that the only realistic option was to lead his slaves out of Roman territory, and try to make a living in Gaul (he was outvoted, and reluctantly led his slaves back south into Italy, to certain doom). In the West, slavery didn't abruptly end, but phased out very slowly, as slaves and lowly peasants merged into a class of serfs. They never managed to change the system, either. 2. There is no reason to assume that the horror regimes of the Incas and Aztecs would have fallen, unless the Spaniards had arrived as an unpredictable factor. I'll continue with a few observations later..