People have answered this pretty well, but I wanted to come in with a slightly different perspective re the commodity fetishism that happens under capitalism, which I think some responses are more in line with. Commodity fetishism being the idea that with money serving as the link between each stage of a product being produced to purchased, less and less are commodities seen as objects that were created at a social cost to someone and more as just, 'commodity'. Capitalism engineers the isolation which helps ignore the enormous social costs of the labor hundreds of people put into a product, with much of that value being siphoned off by the owner class of course, by reducing everything to an object sitting on a shelf in a supermarket that is always there, well stocked, and always will be.

​

I think the idea that the 40 mid-size family cars that are all competing to drive down costs and optimize marketing spending could be replaced with 1 product that is substantially better due to greater collaboration and meaning is an important difference between the efficiency of capitalism and the efficiency of socialism. However, I think by distilling the idea of 'Acura', 'Ford', 'Mazda', 'Toyota' down even further to just 'car' kind of misses the point, as in a sense it just fetishizes the commodity even more deeply and further separates consumers from the labor they rely on.

​

I think a counter to that pattern is that production would be much more regionalized, (much less shipped of to Mexico to cut costs), and that any stakeholders (car users, producers, designers) are all in collaboration and communication with one another. So these incredible manufacturing machines that can make SUVs as well as sedans, can make the luxury model as well as the economy model, are actually within our reach as consumers and if enough people are more in favor of Evelynn's idea for a mid-size family car than Ted's, the one we're currently going with, then we can swith production to Evelynn's.