There is no part of the OC that suggests a positive or negative moral or ethical assessment of the behaviors they described.

I strongly disagree. Here are some examples of what I read as setting up what the capitalist was saying as positive:

“That seems like it was a risk.”

“That seems like a lot of work.”

“Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products.”

“So, really, it’s oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything.”

“Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine.”

That is an easier argument to attack than what was actually described (a series of cause and effect), projected onto the scenario provided in the OC.

I didn't attack it. I said I didn't know if it was positive or negative, because it presents the capitalist as reasonable while he says vile things about the workers.

Acknowledging the motivations and logic of others, even those you disagree with, is not an endorsement of them. It is a fact that what OC described is how the history of capitalism played out in practice (with a large spoonful of corrupt lobbying to drive those wages down and profits for capital holders up).

I honestly don't know if we are talking about the same OC. Do you mean the top comment on the chain or the image in the post?

I hope that clears things up. You weren't "just asking a question".

I certainly didn't frame it as "just asking questions." I was genuinely confused when I was asked:

where do you see such statement in the comment i reacted to? some red circles would help.

When the comment the reacted to (replied to) was mine.

I finally figured it out that they meant "where in my reply did I say that".

You were presuming a specific answer and asking them to verify your presumption.

As I have explained already, I was stating how I read it and asking if this is what they were referring to as true.

If you were genuinely asking a question about how it was read, you could have easily said "I read the OC to imply that workers should be exploited. Is that the fact you're referring to? I ask because that seems too callous to be true.

I think it's absurd to tell people how they should communicate online. I'm sure that wording would have been clearer to you, but it's not the intuitive wording to me. Not everyone speaks english the same way. That's why it's better to assume good intent and ask questions.