> Well you could become an actor, and film makers could use your body to make movies they sell for profits.

Then I would be a laborer. The film company would be using my labor as well as the director's, in conjunction with all the capital they own (cameras, sets...) to generate a profit.

> they could really move your body around and position it in poses to take photographs.

Labor.

> I think your distinction of "capital" and "labor" is fake and completely useless

Ok.

It's not "mine" though, these are centuries old analytical concepts.

> unclear why you insist on it.

I insist on it because it's a sensible and already established way to talk about this stuff.

You guys are the ones making the weird nominal excursion by asserting that labor and capital are identical because you read in a Tim Ferris startup manual that "every man is his own capitalist!" or something.

You don't have to be a radical to just use these terms in their original way. I promise you that pro-capitalist theorists also talk about labor and capital as distinct.