What is a defining feature of modern (i.e.) conflict, be it international or civil, is the extent to which whole swathes of people can be classed as undesirable and therefore an enemy, and whole nations can be mobilised for what we'd call "Total War". It is plain that such mass mobilisation can occur in peacetime, too: and "violence" these days can take many forms: economic, (e.g. Third World debt- primarily a 20th century invention), political (e.g. sanctions etc) and even business (e.g. the arms trade), not to mention cultural- a major aspect of American "imperialism". Now, it's possible to decimate whole populations with nothing more than a fountain pen. That much of this violence is expressed in other terms, and that much of it is sanitised doesn't make it any the less violent for those on the receiving end. Yes, the past was violent, but much of it was personal violence- family feuds, duels, in-fighting. The present situation in Burma perhaps is a good example: the authorities there, afraid of outside interference (with good reason), are doing violence to their own people in massive numbers by refusing aid workers into the country. The sanctions against South Africa, supposedly to make the Apartheid system go away, did far less damage to the whites running the show than it did to the poor masses- most of whom where black. Supposedly the ones we were helping. The current "turn food into bio-fuel" story is another example of the impersonal violence commited these days: wheat is turned into fuel so that westerners can still drive 7 litre cars, whilst others are priced out of the food market.
The worst kind of violence, in my opinion, because it's done under the guise of "market forces". And it is difficult to fight back against.
Good question!