Final answer:
Post-structuralists would view the Cold War as a construction of power dynamics rather than a universal struggle between communism and capitalism, arguing that the geopolitical conflict was a contingent historical outcome rather than an inevitable ideological confrontation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Cold War, characterized by the ideological battle between United States-allied and Soviet-allied forces, was in many ways a reflection of big-picture power dynamics. Post-structuralists, such as Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, would likely interpret the Cold War not as evidence of a universal structure or dichotomy of capitalism versus communism, but rather as a manifestation of power structures specific to that historical moment.
They would argue that the Cold War's dichotomy was not predetermined or necessary but was instead constructed and reinforced by those in power for various geopolitical, economic, and ideological reasons. This post-structuralist perspective disputes universal structures and suggests that the meaning of things, including the political frameworks of the Cold War, is in a state of perpetual creation and recreation, influenced heavily by society's power dynamics.
During the Cold War, both the US and the USSR claimed to be defending the world from imperialism, be it communist or capitalist. This narrative can be seen through a post-structuralist lens as a strategic production of meaning aimed at legitimizing each superpower's geopolitical ambitions. Post-structuralism, with its focus on the deconstruction of supposed universals and the relentless interrogation of power relations, provides a critical approach to understanding the Cold War and its legacy that extends beyond traditional binary oppositions.