No Pity for the Poor: On the Reform of Citizens' Income

The German government has announced plans to replace Bürgergeld with a stricter welfare system called Grundsicherung. The move, led by Federal Labour Minister Bärbel Bas, will introduce harsher rules for around 5.5 million benefit claimants. Critics argue the decision reflects a broader trend of weakening social protections under the guise of reform.

The term 'reform' has lost much of its original meaning over recent decades. Once linked to progressive social change, it now often describes cuts to welfare and public services. Thinkers from the Frankfurt School, including Wilhelm Reich, warned of societal forces pushing people toward either a life-affirming path or one of resignation and conformity.

The new Grundsicherung system will tighten eligibility and impose stricter sanctions. Minister Bas framed the changes as necessary to encourage self-reliance and reduce dependency. Yet observers note the policy aligns with a pattern of 'demolition politics'—where welfare reductions are sold as modernisation. Psychologist Arno Gruen’s work on obedience highlights how early social conditioning shapes later attitudes. His theory of the 'false self' suggests people adopt rigid beliefs to secure approval, often at the cost of empathy. Theodor W. Adorno’s writings similarly explored how children internalise adult prejudices, reinforcing societal hierarchies. The government’s strategy appears aimed at winning over voters disillusioned with mainstream parties. By targeting welfare recipients, officials hope to appeal to the so-called 'little man' and 'little woman'—and steer them away from far-right groups like the AfD. Critics, however, warn the policy risks deepening stigma against the poor, echoing the Frankfurt School’s concept of 'No Pity for the Poor'.

The shift from Bürgergeld to Grundsicherung marks a significant tightening of welfare rules. With 5.5 million people affected, the policy will test whether stricter conditions reduce dependency or push more into hardship. The debate also raises questions about the true meaning of reform—and whether it still serves social progress or simply justifies cuts.