That comes to about one hundred million people in India alone from 1947 to 1980. But we don't call that a crime of democratic capitalism. If we were to carry out that calculation throughout the world… I wont even talk about it. But Sen is correct; they're not intended, just like the Chinese famine wasn't intended. But they are ideological and institutional crimes, and capitalist democracy and its advocates are responsible for them, in whatever sense supporters of so-called Communism are responsible for the Chinese famine. We don't have the entire responsibility, but certainly a large part of it
The author highlights that the loss of around one hundred million lives in India between 1947 and 1980 is not labeled a crime of democratic capitalism. This statistic raises questions about how we perceive responsibility for such tragedies, suggesting that ideological and institutional failings should be recognized. The comparison to the Chinese famine emphasizes that while these events may not have been intentional, they are still rooted in systemic issues within these political frameworks.
Noam Chomsky argues that both capitalist democracy and its critics carry a degree of accountability for the consequences of their systems. He believes that while neither side may be wholly responsible for such crises, they cannot completely escape the impact of their ideologies and practices. This calls for a more nuanced understanding of accountability in historical and contemporary tragedies.