I have an idea that I've had bouncing around in my head for a long while, and want to flesh it out a bit. I call it Object-Oriented Politics, or Object-Oriented Political Theory. If this has been proposed before, I am unaware of it (but feel free to link me).
The idea I got from just basic programming theory. In programming (I'm no expert mind you) there are two major schools of thought - procedural programming and object oriented programming. With procedural programming everything is in a list and it runs to the end, and that is your program. But with object oriented programming you take an object, describe it, how it interacts and what it does, and then you run it in your program with other objects.
What if we took object-oriented programming and applied it to politics?
I propose that we reject the left-right spectrum, the 4 way compass, and horseshoe theory entirely. They are extremely limited and flawed. In their current form they are used by elites to limit political discussion, and it works. People are saying "rightist" and "leftist" and conflating everything within that dichotomy rather than seeing an idea for what it does or does not do. Instead of describing a political system or idea based on what it can or can not do effectively, or on its merits and flaws, it is simply boiled down to where it fits on the spectrum.
With Object Oriented Political Theory we treat a political idea or ideology like we would describe a program. Flaws are like bugs that either have to be worked around or fixed. Its strengths are what makes the program shine. It does or does not do something. This provides a logical structure that is simple to start and is scalable.
Instead of just describing a political idea by just giving some basics and sticking it on a severely limited and fallacious dichotomy (and arguing about whether it is a right or left wing idea), we have a means of describing something in detail, and possibly even account for bias simply for the fact that all you do is describe what it does and does not do. You would start with small things, and combine them to make larger things. This allows for one to describe simple concepts in simple statements, and then describe how a whole system works by combining them. This could also potentially give one a framework to check for problems.
This would also allow for modifications to a system to be described with ease. If a group or individual finds something that they either don't like or find it doesn't work, you can change it, put it back in the whole, and as you combine each individual idea you can test whether it all works, or if further modification is needed.
For example, let's examine some aspects of Communism. I'll give several basic statements, and combine them to make a whole idea. Then I can modify it and show it is still Communism.
1 - All resources must be shared equally
2 - All individuals must contribute all produced resources to the collective resources
3 - All individuals are entitled to the same amount of produced resources as everyone else
4 - Social class does not exist
5 - Industry and cities should spread out so that the city is indistinguishable from the countryside
Now let's form some objects with these statements by combining them, and observing how they interact.
All individuals must contribute all produced resources to a shared pool of resources, that everyone is entitled to draw the same amount from. All individuals are the same, therefore all resources must be shared equally. All industry and cities should be spread out equally, and all resources should follow.
Now you can see a part of the whole of how Communism works. You have an object that can interact with other objects and form a whole program.
Instead of viewing it as a right-left issue, we now see it for what it does and doesn't do. I think something like this being pushed into mainstream political thought would be a good idea. It would encourage people to view things for what they are, and not just put them on a stupid spectrum. I get there is a need to simplify things. However, the current system of the spectrum (and the attempt to fix this with the compass) are flawed in how limited they are. This makes it so an idea is now simple, and at the same time complex. You can also see what makes a system good or bad, and have a foundation to explain why it is. You can either take corrective action, or refuse it entirely and provide specific reasons why inside of a system that - if accepted - is easily understood.
If you want a TL;DR, there is no TL;DR. This point is to not condense everything right away, and to encourage people to see something for what it is. This thread is not for you.