They didn't explicitly say that capital is entitled to a return, but the comment pretty clearly indicated an asymmetry between capital and labor. You could invert the wording to the following

> You aren't de facto entitled to receiving a return on any capital you may provide, regardless of whether that capital is put to productive use or not. A company exists because one or more people provided their labor in order to create a net positive system.

and the tone clearly changes from the original. I agree that neither capital nor labor is entitled to a return, but I don't think that's what the parent comment was suggesting.