This question has come up on a variety of topics and deserves further inquiry on its own merit. I think it is.
It seems clear that if the whole surplus-value were consumed for enjoyment, the process of valorization would only be a process of conserving value and there would be no increase in value. Or, what is the same thing, the increase would be fixed in enjoyment and would be unable to re-enter the production process. It is therefore impossible to find a capitalist who consumes surplus-value for la bella vita.
"This presupposition is the same as presupposing the non-existence of capitalist production and therefore the non- existence of the industriial capitalist himself"- Marx, Capital Vol.II
This means: when it has been shown once and for all that the driving force of the capitalist system is not the individual capitalists desire to enjoy profits, but the impersonal requirements of social capital- a social force which only a revolution will be able to overthrow- to grow by means of surplus-value, one has shown the exact reasons for the necessity of the death of capitalsm and thus, Marx indicates, its scientifically determined non-existence. But obly a science that is revolutionary and no longer doctrinaire can achieve this result! (Poverty of Philosophy, MECW p.6)
-Camatte, Capital & Community
The underlying idea here is that Marxism is a science by virtue of its methodology to analyze the real movement of capital, with all of its social, economic and political manifestations, which finds the answer to sublimating capital in the class struggle and the mechanism of revolutionary classes and development of the productive forces as the motor of history and the foundation for a post-capital, communist way of life. Theory based on the real movement of history and society.
Is Marxism a science?