本文通過分析五四運動刊物中有關布爾什維克主義和激進主義（過激主義）的文章，重新探討了五四運動期間布爾什維克主義這一概念及其與激進主義的關係。五四期間的作者對激進主義持不同觀點，原因在於這些觀點為他們所設想的中國未來道路的一系列理念提供支持。一些作者，如陳獨秀，為了支持中國發展應當追隨蘇聯模式這一主張，期望賦予布爾什維克主義以積極的含義。但這很難做到，因為當時過激主義這一名詞也被用來指布爾什維克主義。本文探討了五四運動作者中有多少人希望使用其它不含貶義的替代名詞，比如基於發音的「布爾塞維克」，或追隨俄語原文語義的「多數派」。對布爾什維克主義感興趣的作者認為過激主義這一名詞也有貶損布爾什維克主義的企圖。本文表明，五四運動的作者既未被布爾什維克也未被反布爾什維克的宣傳所操控，這些作者跟隨國際上對於布爾什維克主義的探討，並且非常清楚國外對於這一概念也存在爭議。

The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the concept of Bolshevism and its relation to the concept of radicalism during the May Fourth Movement period by looking at the writings on Bolshevism and radicalism in the May Fourth Movement journals. The relevance of different views on radicalism lies in their usages in making claims about possible and desirable set of ideas for the future course of China. Authors such as Chen Duxiu, who wanted to support the idea that China should follow Soviet Russian examples in its development, wanted to give the concept of Bolshevism positive meanings. What made these efforts difficult, was that in this context one of the names, namely guòjīzhŭyì (過激主義), which was used to refer to Bolshevism, was also used to refer to the concept of radicalism. This paper shows how many of the May Fourth Movement authors wanted to use alternative names without such negative connotations, such as the one that was based on the phonetics (布爾塞維克, Bùěrsāiwéikè) or semantics (Bolsheviks as 多數派, Duōshùpài, the majority party) of the original Russian version (большевики). Authors interested in Bolshevism saw the name guòjīzhŭyì as an attempt to denigrate Bolshevism. This paper also shows that neither Bolshevik nor anti-Bolshevik propaganda did not manipulate May Fourth Movement authors. They followed international discussion and were well aware that Bolshevism was a controversial issue abroad.