There is no sane reason to restrict violence to the immediate physical. If you destroy someone's livelihood, e.g. by forcing them into bankruptcy, they will have to leave their home and give up their assets. What if they don't? They must because there is a threat of force behind the act.

Destroying someone's livelihood is nothing else than asking someone to give up the resources they collected over time under the threat of force: if they refuse, they will have the police to talk to.

And if they do not listen to the police, the police have guns.

That is violence.

Why do you think it is not violence?