【摘要】 关于马克思社会方法论的解读，西方学界一直存在广泛争议。其中，最具对照性的争议是围绕方法论个体主义与方法论集体主义展开的。方法论集体主义的解读主要源于波普尔、哈耶克等学者的观点，其核心在于批评马克思关于生产方式及与之相适应的交往形式的社会分析。他们认为，此类侧重于社会结构和阶级且强调社会现象独立解释的分析，实质上是“幼稚实在论”的表现，容易导致忽视个体行为的自主性。方法论个体主义的解读则以埃尔斯特和罗默等学者为代表，他们更多关注马克思对个人行动目的性的讨论，并试图将复杂的社会现象简化为个人行为及其相互作用的结果，通过低层次属性的聚合来解释宏观社会现象。事实上，这两种解读方式既有偏差，也存在局限性。虽然它们在某些方面具有启发性，却未能充分展现马克思社会方法论的复杂性，有时还陷入对其进行二分法解读的误区。更多还原

【Abstract】 There have long been extensive debates among western scholars regarding the interpretation of Marx’s social methodology. Among these disputes, the most contrasting positions revolve around methodological individualism and methodological collectivism. The methodological collectivism interpretation mainly advanced by scholars such as Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek, which fundamentally critiqued Marx’s analysis of modes of production and their associated forms of social interaction. They argued that such an emphasis on social structures and classes, along with the independent explanation of social phenomena, essentially reflected a form of “naive realism”, which tended to neglect the autonomy of individual actions. Conversely, the methodological individualism interpretation championed by scholars like Jon Elster and John Roemer. They focused more on Marx’s analysis of the intentionality in individual actions, attempting to reduce complex social phenomena to the outcomes of individual behaviors and interactions, explaining macro-level social realities through the aggregation of micro-level attributes. In fact, both interpretive approaches exhibit certain biases and limitations. While each provides valuable insights in specific respects, neither fully captures the complexity of Marx’s methodology. Some times, they may fall into the reductive trap of framing it through a simplistic dichotomy.更多还原