The definition I use is the one that’s commonly accepted as standard today. Capitalism didn’t invent the concept of getting paid for work. If we are talking about definitions, you aren’t using labor in a very accurate way either. Consider giving Marx a read, you might find out that he actually intended workers to have jobs (but probably not if you redefine the term to something like “mephistophelian scheme to suck the life force out of people”)

Getting paid wages for work is literally what Capitalism is. That’s the entire point. When we talk about economic systems before Capitalism, we are discussing economic systems where this economic relation did not exist yet. Feudalism, for example, the economic system directly preceding Capitalism, was the exchange of land rights for work–wealthy lords allowed people to live on their land, in exchange for one’s labor. That might bear a passing resemblance to a job as we commonly use the term, but it isn’t the same economic relation, not by a long shot. You are using relatively new terms of language and trying to make them apply to eras when they didn’t even exist yet. 

As far as the term labor, you say I’m not using it accurately, but you didn’t offer any actual counter argument…so…whatever. 

As for Marx intending people to have jobs…???What???

For one thing, throughout his writings, Marx never adequately described what, exactly, Communism would look like (I say that as someone who has read a substantial number of his works). One thing that would not have existed in Communism, however, is any form of relation which would resemble the employer/employee relation which is fundamental to capitalism, so…no. People would do work, and labor would exist, of course, but the economic relations of a Communist society would be fundamentally classless–there would be no “employers”, and so there would be no one offering “jobs” at all, or at least, not jobs in the sense that we understand them now.

In the end, you’re making still making the same fallacious linguistic argument–you’re assuming that language is static and unchanging, and that just because something appears similar to a natural kind we currently use, that means it must be an instance of that natural kind, but that isn’t how language works, that isn’t how natural kinds function logically, and that isn’t how reality is socially constructed. Go read Saul Kripke’s book, “On Naming and Necessity,” and then get back to me when you’re done with being a corncob.