陳獨秀走向共產主義的道路是輾轉曲折的。他雖然在清末即與無政府主義者多所接觸，也於一九一五年明白肯定社會主義的價值，卻及至一九二0年方始主張以共產主義作為改造中國的指導原則。本文主旨即在經由梳理陳獨秀關於「歷史」與「個人」的討論，說明他在這段期間所懷抱愛國主義的特徵，以及思想上的幾項重要轉折。 陳獨秀的轉向共產主義與他對於國家的關懷有密切關係。他自始即憂心於中國在列強環伺下的命運，爾後並由於個人識見的增進和客觀形勢的變化，分別就外交、內政與文化、和社會結構等層面界定中國問題的性質。他首先向官方獻議鞏固兵防，之後改為呼籲安徽省民，共同致力於國富兵強的建設，再改為勉勵全國青年以近代西方為模範建立新文化，以至於敦促所有勞動者透過組織和強力革既有政治社會經濟結構之命。陳獨秀並未因為關注國家命運，而主張國家至上。他在強調個人應該努力挽救國家於危急存亡之際的同時，再三呼籲要在認清國家保衛人民福祉的真正目的下愛國，並試圖從個人的角度說明個人與國家的相依相存。 陳獨秀走向共產主義的考量與選擇，尤其清楚地見於他愛國主張中關於歷史與個人的看法。陳獨秀原先以為在救國的目標下，中國歷史具有提供學習榜樣和增進國家認同的功能；但是在接受進化史觀之後，轉以西方國家的經驗作為改造社會的指標，並嚴苛地批評中國傳統。他承認人類歷史有其由封建、經資本主義、以至於社會主義的階段進化。不過，他重視進化所意涵社會中幸福的增加和公理的伸張，更甚於其中所謂演化的定則；他也相信俄國大革命業已證明社會主義無俟於資本主義的充分發展，並且可以作為改造中國現狀的模範。 在陳獨秀看來，共產主義不僅意涵進化，並且是各種社會主義中最具體有效的辦法。陳獨秀歷來強調個人不要作奴隸，重視個人的識見與努力所能造成的影響，並在試圖改造現狀時，傾向於以說理的方式，直接訴諸個人的自我覺醒與要求。然而，巴黎和會的失敗所展現出中國軍閥和歐美日各國的冥頑不靈，使他覺悟必須以強力對抗強力；俄國大革命的成功更使他以為共產主義在這方面提供了理論的解釋和實踐的辦法，他因此開始強調個人是社會的產物，個人要想改變社會，必須透過聚合眾人力量的組織構築新的強力。陳獨秀在建黨的目標下，不再強調個人的自由與自治；他轉而希望黨員能統一意志合力執行黨的意見。陳獨秀這一由重視個人及其自我改造到強調組織和直接改造社會的轉變，恰亦體現中國近代思想史上由新文化運動走向共產主義運動的重要關鍵。

　　　　　The appeal of Communism to Ch'en Tu-hsiu was far from direct and immediate. Ch'en in his youth had among his close friends anarchists and, in 1915, openly praised socialism as one of the three essential characteristics of the admirable modern West. He, nonetheless, did not commit himself to Communism until 1920. As this essay shows, in the process of his turning to Communism, Ch'en not only redefined the problems that China had to face but also epitomized significant intellectual changes of his time. Like most modern Chinese intellectuals, Ch'en had been very much concerned with China's fate under the pressure of foreign invasion. He identified the problems of China first in terms of military defense, then of national politics, of culture, and, in the end, of social structure. Ch'en's patriotism implicates more than the idea of saving the nation. His argument that the nation is worth loving only when it aims to protect and foster the welfare of the people, at times created tensions in his mind and led to controversies over his positions. This essay, in particular, illuminates Ch'en's roundabout route to Communism by explicating his ideas of history and of the individual, two crucial concerns of modern Chinese intellectuals. In the period of 1897-1921, Ch'en had adopted an evolutionary view of history and moved from finding models and lessons in Chinese history to attacking Chinese tradition with little reservation. In addition he accepted the idea that human society evolved via the stages of feudalism, capitalism and socialism. Historical evolution, however, meant for him more the increase of social justice and the welfare of the people than the iron law of social development. He took the Russian Revolution as a proof that socialism was possible without the full blossom of capitalism. Among all kinds of socialism, Ch'en viewed Communism as the most effective means of bringing the ideal society into existence. Ever since his early years, Ch'en had upheld the individual's right to freedom and self-determination. He had also tried to implement changes by appealing to the individual's consciousness and self-cultivation. After the Paris Conference of 1919 and entailing political developments in China, Ch'en was convinced of the need to fight both the warlords and imperialism with force rather than with persuasion. He, furthermore, found in Communism as well as in the Russian revolution the more satisfactory explanation and practical model of what was to be done. Ch'en began to create a political party in the image of the Bolsheviks. He also started to argue for the priority of changing social and economic institutions. Debating with the anarchists over the nature of the party, Ch'en insisted on the individual's submission to the party, which, in his view, would transform one's negligible personal strength into an organized power to revolutionize the status quo. This shift of emphasis from the individual to organization, indeed, embodied a significant change from the New Culture Movement to the Communist Movement in modern China.