Democratic Socialism is the system of government and of the state which emphasizes the necessity of democratic processes in all government controls lest they become communist or fascist, that there is a legitimate place for some competition  in a socialist order although the dominant principle should be cooperation. And that government control does not always and necessarily mean government ownership.

In the 17th ecentury,the British established themseselves as the world’s leaders of progressive politics by making the British Parliament supreme against the crown. Since then, the idea of popular sovereignty has become an integral part o civilized governments. Some nations like France learned from British example. Other European nations have not learned their lesson .No wonder many countries are still centuries behind.

In the 20th century, Britain again became the symbol of world’s ideology-democratic socialism. Britain was the first to develop socialist ideas owing to the fact that Britain was the first to start the industrial revolution which created the urban working class without which there could be no socialist movement. The British socialism couldn’t but be democratic from the estart, because the government, by consent, was a part of English life. Marxist communism, fascism and even theRevilutinary Right could not find a favorable response form the British people. In the elections of 1950, 1951, 1955, and 1959, the Communists failed to win a single seat. In 1945, however, the Communists had won two seats.

It was in 1884 that Sir William Harcourt, a British liberal leader said,” We are all socialists now”. Since then the trend all over the world, has been toward more collective action. In the United States, theist tendency found expression in Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, a d in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. If the world’s economic system of sheltered capitalist civilization, is giving to develop at all in the direction of more publication and responsibilty.Britain and not Russia supplies the laboratory in which the democratic observers will want those what tests are being carried out and why Attlee is not nearly the dramatic figure that Lenin was .But to a democrat, Sydney Webb and Tawny, and Attlee, are of greater practical importance than the quarrels between Stalin and Trotsky, or Mars’s call to revolution, coupled with the scorned of dictatorship of ht proletariat.

If the Unites States were ever to subject even part of her economy to public control or management it had tube done slowly, as in England and not overnight as in Russia. Every change world has to be debated and passed by Congress, rather than imposed by revolutionary militia. The problem in Russia in 1917 was to build industry in a highly agrarian society with little democratic experience.

The Problem of socialism in advanced countries like Britain and the United States was to reorganize the existing industrial system in a society thatwashighly literate, relatively prosperous, and attached to free government. Finally, there wasnomiddle class in Russia in 1917, when communism triumphed. In the United Status as in Englean,there was a vast and strong middle class man’s the problem for socialists was to persuade its most crucial scoter-managers, engineerts,technicians, and further they could reasonably expect under private enterprises.

Socialist literature in England had no Marx or Lenin, who lay down the law for altimeter most intellectual thinkers in England had frequently been without any official position of party or government, and their impact had been due primarily to their moral authority and felicitous literary style .Many considered R.H. Tawny’s The A cubistic Society (1921) one of thereat classics of English Literatures well as of socialist thought. Avoiding unnecessary technical terms, Tawny defined industry as “nothing more mysterious than abode of men associated in various degrees of competition and cooperation. town thief livelihood by providing the community with some service . However, under the capitalist system of industry and wealth,” functionless” property has developed, property which yields income and power without rendering any service. The essence of property is power, a kind of “limited sovereignty”. This power becomes easily tyrannical when it is not responsible to atone but itself, and when the only question asked in “What does it yield?” rather than” What service does it performs?” From functionless property comes the power of those “who do not work over those who do.”

The spirit of British socialism is well reflected into writings of Sydney and Beatrice Webs, Tawny, Laski and a host of other. But it seems there is not a single work which can present the essence of British Socialist Philosophy and a course of action the British could hake to funds socialites state. There is more emphasis on moral aspects than on practical action to translate the philosophy in to reality.

The moral aspect of socialism is also central into the thought of Jawaharlal Nehru, near to Gandhi, India’s greatest leader in the twentieth century. The moral case for socialism is simply that it is bases on a philosophy of optimism about human nature, but as democrat is. That is why it is the natural culmination of the democratic idea and why if one is to be a genuine democrat, one ought to be a socialist. The democratic idea in its modern form is quite a new idea. It is true in the sense that it was an affirmation of faith in the ordinary man; in his ability to govern himself better than he coulee governed but any hereditary or self-appointedruler.The democratic idea is a revolutionary idea because it said that however much men might differ in their individual talents and abilities, they were equal sin their membership in a common society. It thus sought to transmit  into the political sphere the religious ethic of the uniqueness of the human personality and of the value of the individual-a value that is not tube judged  solely by the standards of worldly successful rather one by whose light all men are seen as equal.

It was opposed by many men of intelligence and goodwill as well as by many others of less estimable character. They couldn’t bring themselves to believe that ordinary men possessed this capacity to manage their own affairs decently, or that government by majority could be other than the government directed b the lowest common denominator of human credulity and passion. They were prepared to do anything for them except trust them.