Property that you can use to produce value beyond itself through workers' labor is capital.
Suppose you had a robot. Would that robot be labor or capital? Assume the robot has the same capability for work as you.
At the end of the day it is a machine, so "capital". Likewise you own your body, it is your capital.
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.
This is a fake world. In the real world there is history, capital and labor, and politics which is an expression of the unavoidable, built-in antagonism between the two. We don't all own an equal share of the means of production and just sit around issuing contracts to each other all day.
Do you understand that the econ 101 libertarian world of homo economicus rational agents is fake and we live instead in the real world with its institutions and conflicts?