How about a citation instead of the somewhat snarky suggestion to "take a gander at the history of the federal rules"? I am not an expert here, but Wikipedia suggests that the history of grouping similar cases for efficient resolution by the courts is not actually the basis for the modern American class action--it was pushed by those who thought it would be a good vehicle for new cases that wouldn't have been viable previously (as the GP suggested):

The Advisory Committee that drafted the new Rule 23 in the mid-1960s was influenced by two major developments. First was the suggestion of Harry Kalven, Jr. and Maurice Rosenfield in 1941 that class action litigation by individual shareholders on behalf of all shareholders of a company could effectively supplement direct government regulation of securities markets and other similar markets. The second development was the rise of the civil rights movement, environmentalism and consumerism. The groups behind these movements, as well as many others in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, all turned to class actions as a means for achieving their goals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

Also, it's somewhat misleading to cite to the history of the class action and ignore current justifications. This is like arguing that U.S. democracy is bad because it was originally a method for a small group of wealthy landowners to control the country, while ignoring the fact that currently anyone can vote. The history of class actions in England, although interesting, does not make the GP comment incorrect. If the modern purpose is only to simplify similar cases, we already have coordination and consolidation.