 Let us say that \(A\) oppresses \(B\) when \(A\) deprives \(B\) of freedoms or opportunities to which \(B\) is entitled. If \(A\) gains from the oppressive relationship, as when \(A\) enslaves \(B\), then \(A\) may both oppress and exploit \(B\). But if \(A\) does not gain from the oppression, the oppression is wrong but not exploitative. We might say that the unemployed are oppressed, but unless we could specify the ways in which some gain from their lack of employment, the unemployed are not exploited. Marxists would claim that capitalists pay exploitative wages to the employed precisely because there is a “reserve army” of the unemployed with whom the employed must compete. But that merely confirms that they are exploited because the oppression generates a gain to the capitalist class, and it is the employed who are exploited and not the unemployed that make such exploitation possible.