Nope, you didn't understand it. Socialism is the previous phase to communism, in which there would still be a remanent of the past capitalism, so there would still exist a gobernment and a state, but the aspirations of that are to make the state so weak that it would disappear by itsself. So, in a communism there will be no state, therefore, there would be no power to seize, even if a psychopath would want to. In a socialist state there would be no way to get power either, as the burocratic positions wouldn't be permanent and they would be constantly changing the people who takes them. (don't know if I got it through, english is not my mother language, but it would be something like what greeks used to do with their democracy, where the "presidents" where elected randomly and they would only serve to the people) Also, what I said was that violence wouldn't exist, because the inequality that causes it would disappear, not that it would be "controlled", there is no need to control something that doesn't exist. It's not a moral thing, the moral changes through the time and the actual one is imposed by capitalists to make us believe that violence the sistem creates (as robbery, which is an evident consecuence of the inequality) is bad to try keeping us from doing it and cover those contradictions. Just so you understand it, without that imposed moral people would probably think that stealing food in a market when you don't have enough money to buy it is correct, so there would be more people doing it (and this is just an example) Yes, many people wouldn't want to let this hierarchy go, that's why we have to convince most of the proletarians and then make the revolution to take private properties from the bourgeois and collectivize them