An important element of Aleksander Bocheński’s political reflection was the analysis of economic phenomena. It was also always intertwined with the geopolitical reflection retained in the mainstream of political realism, which was the key to his concept. Bocheński affirmed the People’s Poland as a form of Polish statehood not only in the international but also in the economic aspect. He postwar than pre-war economic achievements, seeing the Second Republic primarily through the prism of the economic crisis and the weakness of industry. Over time, he became an honest supporter of the command and distribution system, raising the importance of labor discipline and high production rates. The emergence of Solidarity, martial law and the policy of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski’s team considered not only in terms of the threat of Soviet intervention and internal destabilization, but also the economic crisis. He wanted a deep reform of the economic system, which nevertheless did not violate the general principle of economic control by the state. In place of the „dictatorship of bureaucrats,” he proposed the „dictatorship of managers”, combined with an appropriate system of incentive motivators. This led to his criticism of the idea of introducing competition mechanisms into the PRL economy. Treating the economic system as a great conglomerate, which every employee should feel obliged to work efficiently and reliably in the name of higher goals, he seemed to create a Polish variant of Taylorism. On the other hand, despite the large anachronism of his reflection, he appreciated the importance of computerization and economic relief for private entrepreneurs. In the turn of 1989, he referred with reserve to the actions of Deputy Prime Minister Balcerowicz, raising the social costs of shock therapy and its negative effects on Polish industry. At the end of his life, he was much better at assessing the economic policies of communists than the governments of the Third Polish Republic. He did not believe in the „invisible hand of the market”, but in the decisive role of adequately managed capital, that is, an efficient state apparatus. The pre-war and post-war advocate of etatism also remained faithful to the belief that the international position of the state determined to a decisive extent its economic potential.