Most systems of social analysis recognise the link between social class and ownership. Marxists base their theories on ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Market researchers want to know whether and what type of house and car you own. Some systems group people according to the type of work they do, differentiating between strata of the working and middle classes. This covers the bulk of the population, but it does not include those who own the means of production.
Before the advent of private property, society was effectively classless. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage a classless society without common ownership. All subsequent forms of social organisation have been based on the concentration of property within one or more classes.
Slaves were themselves property, and normally much more numerous than freemen. Merchant classes owned the means of distribution. Feudal systems varied greatly, with early feudal states still having a large numbers of slaves, but all were characterised by property being made available to lower classes in return for labour or some other service.
Feudalism persisted longer in rural society, while urban areas adopted capitalist organisation, based on ownership of the means of production.
Modern attempts to defuse class antagonisms recognise the importance of property to class. For example, the stimulation of share ownership is intended to blur class distinctions. However, though share ownership is now widespread in Britain, control of companies still resides with a small minority of the population. This has generally been the case not just with private companies, but also with nationalised industries.
Many advocates of public ownership accept that mistakes were made in the postwar period. Many nationalisations occurred in industries that had been bled dry by their owners, and underinvestment continued to be a problem for a long time. There was a distinct lack of industrial democracy and public control, and senior management were often the same people who dragged the industries into the mire. In these cases, public ownership was purely nominal, and common ownership virtually nonexistent. For this reason many people prefer to use the term "state ownership" when describing such enterprises.