I think that’s a radical missuse of that passage by Hobbes. It’s his description of the “state of nature” without governments, not necessarily a comment on the life of the ordinary man. Although in the 1651 it would probably be an understatement to describe the lives of the peasant class in such terms. That said like most men of his time and age his theories were not for the peasant class but those he’d deem worthy.
This is the full text of that passage where he describes the “state of nature” or life without government:
“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
That said I don’t necessarily disagree with you that suffering, on one level or another, is an inevitable part of the human condition. I was brought up Catholic though and man is suffering fetishised there!