Arendt makes a crucial distinction between power and violence:

1. Power: For Arendt, power is the ability to act in concert. It emerges when people come together and act collectively. Power is based on consent and does not need justification, but it does need legitimacy.
2. Violence: Violence, in contrast, is instrumental in nature. It is a means to an end and always needs justification. Violence can destroy power but can never create it.

Arendt argues that power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent. She contends that violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course, it ends in power's disappearance. This distinction is fundamental to Arendt's political theory and her critique of traditional conceptions of power and violence in political thought.

Arendt critiques the glorification of violence in revolutionary and radical thought on several grounds:

1. Misunderstanding of power: She argues that many thinkers mistakenly equate power with violence, leading to a dangerous overemphasis on violent means.
2. Ineffectiveness: Arendt contends that violence is ultimately ineffective in achieving lasting political change. It may destroy the old order but cannot create a new one.
3. Dehumanization: She warns that the use of violence tends to dehumanize both perpetrators and victims, undermining the very goals of liberation and equality that revolutionaries often claim to pursue.
4. Loss of legitimacy: Arendt argues that reliance on violence undermines the legitimacy of political movements, as it replaces consent and collective action with coercion.
5. Historical misinterpretation: She criticizes thinkers who view violence as the driving force of history, arguing instead for the importance of non-violent political action and speech.

Arendt's critique is particularly aimed at leftist thinkers who justified violence as a means of historical progress or revolution. She sees this as a dangerous misconception that ultimately undermines genuine political power and freedom.

Arendt analyzes the relationship between violence and technology in modern warfare, highlighting several key points:

1. Multiplication of force: Technology multiplies the potential for violence, allowing small groups or individuals to wield destructive power previously reserved for large armies or states.
2. Impersonality: Modern technology makes violence more impersonal, distancing the perpetrator from the consequences of their actions. This can lead to a greater willingness to use violence.
3. Unpredictability: The advancement of military technology, especially nuclear weapons, introduces an unprecedented level of unpredictability and potential for total destruction.
4. Obsolescence of traditional power structures: Arendt argues that technological advancements in warfare have made traditional power structures based on numbers or wealth increasingly obsolete.
5. Ethical challenges: The combination of violence and advanced technology poses new ethical challenges, as the means of violence become increasingly divorced from human scale and comprehension.

Arendt sees this relationship as particularly problematic in the context of her distinction between power and violence. As technology enhances the capacity for violence, it threatens to overshadow and destroy authentic political power based on collective action and consent.

Arendt's concept of "bureaucratic violence" refers to the kind of violence that emerges from complex administrative systems and impersonal bureaucracies. Key aspects include:

1. Diffusion of responsibility: In bureaucratic systems, responsibility for violent acts is often diffused across many individuals, making it difficult to assign culpability.
2. Banality of evil: This relates to Arendt's famous concept from her work on the Eichmann trial, where ordinary people can commit extraordinary evil when operating within a bureaucratic system.
3. Dehumanization: Bureaucratic violence tends to treat humans as objects or statistics, removing the human element from decision-making processes.
4. Rule-based violence: Violence becomes embedded in rules and procedures, making it seem routine and necessary rather than extraordinary.
5. Disconnect between action and consequence: Those implementing bureaucratic violence are often far removed from its consequences, leading to a lack of empathy or understanding of the impact.

This concept relates to Arendt's broader theory by highlighting how violence in the modern world often operates through systems and structures rather than individual acts of aggression. It underscores her concern with how modern forms of organization can facilitate violence while obscuring individual moral responsibility.

Arendt's view on the relationship between violence and the state is complex and challenges traditional notions:

1. Monopoly on violence: While acknowledging that states claim a monopoly on legitimate violence, Arendt argues that this doesn't constitute the essence of state power.
2. Legitimacy vs. violence: For Arendt, state legitimacy is based on the power that comes from the collective consent of the people, not on its capacity for violence.
3. Authority distinct from violence: She distinguishes authority from violence, seeing authority as based on respect and recognition, not coercion.
4. Violence as a sign of weakness: Arendt argues that a state's resort to violence often indicates a loss of power and legitimacy rather than strength.
5. Critique of social contract theory: She challenges theories that base the foundation of the state on an original act of violence or force.
6. Violence in totalitarianism: Arendt sees the extensive use of violence by totalitarian regimes as a sign of their fundamental lack of true power and authority.

In essence, Arendt views the relationship between violence and the state as often misunderstood. She argues for a conception of state power based on consent and collective action, seeing violence as a tool that states may use but which does not constitute their true power or authority. This view challenges both traditional justifications of state violence and revolutionary theories that see violence as a means of political change.