When it comes to attitudes towards revolutionary violence, there are basically three kinds of people:

1) People who don't know what you mean,
2) People who envision it as fundamentally clean and bloodless, like an idealized execution,
3) People with visceral fantasies about it.

So, the thing is, 2) is something that is incompatible with the kind of broad, sweeping scope that people present as necessary, because to get "all the landlords" or "all the capitalists" with the definitions we use on this hellsite, you need one of two things:

A massive panopticon that is able to extract such a total degree of information and filter it to the point of flawlessly identifying people's class position and class loyalty,

or to kill a whole bunch of people who aren't in the definitions.

Neither one is really acceptable to people in group 2), and the panopticon is really impractical and implausible too.

There are, of course, traditions which see violence as instrumental but not necessary.

I think a lot of people in 2) who have been leftists for years and years or even decades see themselves as part of that tradition unless they're one of the asshole groups, and when they presume violence is necessary they mean to convey that violence is inevitable.

However, this combines with group 3), which is people who desire visceral, Bacchae-style bloodshed against the class enemies, and who are generally indifferent to the problem of identifying such because they're not into this for instrumental purposes but personal ones.

So the end result is a kind of overall vague fetishization of violence, because one group of people definitely fetishizes violence and another group thinks violence is inevitable, creating a gestalt position.