"...The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theater, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint... The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life..."
But then there was also this old Calvinist leftist named Thorstein who furnished his home with orange crates upholstered in burlap (& according to legend, fucked all the faculty wives). Thorstein viewed conspicuous consumption as having quite another purpose than the simple enjoyment of material goods. Rather its utility lay in the wasteful display that demonstrated to others the possession of wealth. The problem that arises from this conspicuous consumption is that it stops being conspicuous when it's ubiquitous. Yachts and castles lose their prestige value if everybody has one. But so do SUVs and home entertainment centres at a more plebian level. Not even the Joneses can keep up with all the Joneses.
Has it occurred to anyone that the putative Calvinist leftist's "lust for suffering" may simply be a form of conspicuous consumption (or in this case conspicuous unconsumption) that performs or is intended to perform the same status function that much consumption of wealth performs, once we move a way from literalist interpretations of utility?
The Sandwichman