[sershe]

At some point, maybe. Let's say we are subsistence farmers (as close to self sufficient, pure labor as it gets), and I spend extra time on the side to raise an ox. I cannot utilize the ox to its full potential myself, but I can lend it to others and massively increase their labor productivity without much increasing their labor input (or even while decreasing it). The ox is capital. What creates the extra wealth from others' work here and who deserves to keep it? I'd argue that if it decreases labor input I "deserve" 100% of the wealth differential, or close to 100% otherwise. That labor gets a lot of it is really unfair, although I do admit it's a necessary evil.

[mushbino]

The wealth is still produced by labor in your example. The question of who should keep how much is a different thing entirely.

[sershe]

This is just nitpicking. The wealth differential produces by the ox for 15 years of its useful life requires very little extra labor from me, the ox raiser. That's why they have a category for "capital". If some people build a factory, it is technically labor, but it will be enabling the creation of extra wealth for decades, to some extent centuries. Who should get this wealth? The labor 50 years later working at the factory has no moral claim on it.