There was not before the War, and there has not been since, any serious challenge to the economic argument of _The Great Illusion_. Criticism (which curiously enough does not seem to have included the point dealt with in the preceding Chapter) seems to have centred rather upon the irrelevance of economic considerations to the problem of war--the problem, that is, of creating an international society. The answer to that is, of course, both explicit and implicit in much of what precedes. The most serious criticism has been directed to one specific point. It is made notably both by Professor Spenser Wilkinson[122] and Professor Lindsay,[123] and as it is relevant to the existing situation and to much of the argument of the present book, it is worth dealing with. The criticism is based on the alleged disparagement of the State implied in the general attitude of the book. Professor Lindsay (whose article, by the way, although hostile and misapprehending the spirit of the book, is a model of fair, sincere, and useful criticism) describes the work under criticism largely as an attack on the conception of 'the State as a person.' He says in effect that the present author argues thus:-- 'The only proper thing to consider is the interest or the happiness of individuals. If a political action conduces to the interests of individuals, it must be right; if it conflicts with these interests it must be wrong.' Professor Lindsay continues:-- 'Now if pacifism really implied such a view of the relation of the State and the individual, and of the part played by self-interest in life, its appeal has little moral force behind it.... 'Mr. Angell seems to hold that not only is the national State being superseded, but that the supersession is to be welcomed. The economic forces which are destroying the State will do all the State has done to bind men together, and more.' As a matter of fact Professor Lindsay has himself answered his own criticism. For he goes on:-- 'The argument of _The Great Illusion_ is largely based on the public part played by the organisation of credit. Mr Angell has been the first to notice the great significance of its activity. It has misled him, however, into thinking that it presaged a supersession of political by economic control.... The facts are, not that political forces are being superseded by economic, but that the new industrial situation has called into being new political organisations.... To co-ordinate their activities ... will be impossible if the spirit of exclusive nationalism and distrust of foreigners wins the day; it will be equally impossible if the strength of our existing centres of patriotism and public spirit are destroyed.'