For example, I'm writing a paper on Stalin, and one of the claims is that Stalin managed to rise to power because of the ineptness of other leaders. Would this be considered a structuralist or an intentionalist argument?
So basically, my paper is on how Stalin rose to power, and has three arguments.
1.) Structuralist argument -basically the USSR was corrupt AF and Stalin's(or another dictator's) rise to power was inevitable
2.) Intentionalist argument - basically Stalin was smart AF and outfoxed everybody.
3.) The aforementioned argument that Trotsky was arrogant AF and basically Stalin was lucky.
Does this sound about right?
Intentionalist means that Stalin planned his rise to the top from the start. Most (if not all) moves were calculated, intended to get him to his final position.
Structuralist arguments say that he didn't plan it from the outset, but gradually as various situations played out, he realised he could rise to the top and then did so.
A comparison could be made for the Final Solution, where intentionalists would say Hitler planned the genocide from the outset and structuralists say the disorganization and various failures of the Nazi Party led to the Holocaust ultimately becoming the solution to the 'Jewish Question'.
Hope this helps