Barely a day goes by in Germany without renewed assaults on the welfare state. The “autumn of reforms” proclaimed by Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz is now revealing itself to be nothing more than an orchestrated campaign by the Union (CDU/CSU) and employers, who are seeking to dominate the public debate with their numerous initiatives and portray their austerity measures as the only viable option.
Cansın Köktürk represents Die Linke in the Bundestag and serves as the party’s spokesperson on social policy. She studied social work and worked for many years as a social worker in Bochum.
Whether pensions, welfare payments, or support for parents — the ruling coalition between the CDU and its junior partner, the Social Democrats (SPD), seems intent on leaving no policy left uncut. How is Die Linke, the only socialist opposition in parliament, responding? The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Eva Völpel spoke with Die Linke MP Cansın Köktürk about the reform agenda proposed by the ruling federal coalition government.
The CDU and SPD have agreed to reform Germany’s Bürgergeld (welfare payment) system. According to these reforms, anyone who fails to attend their third appointment at the Jobcenter (employment agency) will have their payments completely cut off — even including rent and heating subsidies. What is the motivation behind this kind of policy?
This reform is nothing other than symbolic politics at the expense of the nation’s poorest. It sends the message that the poor are to blame — and that they will be punished. But its goal isn’t saving money; it’s all about power and propaganda. The government keeps people in a state of fear and weakens their solidarity, because those who are worried about being able to pay their rent every month generally have less bandwidth to make demands.
Even in financial terms, it achieves nothing. On the contrary: it will increase costs. Every sanction results in bureaucracy, appeals, and court proceedings. In other words: this policy serves an ideological purpose. It’s all about demonstrating harshness and dividing society between those who “contribute” and those who supposedly “mooch off the system”. From my experience working as a social worker, however, I know that missed appointments have nothing to do with laziness, but with the fact that people have no access to affordable childcare, are ill or psychologically overwhelmed, or simply cannot afford a train ticket. Ignoring this reality is not social policy — it’s institutionalized contempt for human beings.
This neoliberal narrative has become deeply ingrained in people’s minds. It diverts attention from the real causes and effects of social inequality, such as low wages, housing shortages, the uneven concentration of wealth, and tax evasion by the rich.
Not enough people are asking the crucial question, which is why people even need to apply for Bürgergeld in the first place? The problem here is not one of individual failure, but political decision-making. Precarious wages, insecure jobs, high rents, and an inequitable education system all create and perpetuate poverty. A society that takes social security seriously would ensure living wages, a fair taxation system, and decent public services. Instead, we’re once again watching on as the weakest are punished so that the government can demonstrate its might. This is not only misguided in terms of social policy, it’s also morally depraved.
As a social worker in the Ruhr region, you’ve experienced first-hand what poverty actually means. What consequences will this reform have for people who depend on the so-called Neue Grundsicherung (New Basic Security, which is what Bürgergeld is set to be renamed to)?
It will mean power cuts, evictions, psychological distress. If even rent and heating subsidies can now be cut, this will lead to rising homelessness, overburdened local authorities, and more poverty. This doesn’t equate to a “motivation to work” — it’s humiliation and exclusion. Single parents, young people, and people with mental health problems will be the first to suffer. It’s a policy that will break people rather than support them.
In 2019, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled on imposing sanctions on Bürgergeld recipients, stating that a complete withdrawal of benefits would not be in line with the constitution and the right to a dignified minimum standard of living. So why is the coalition still determined to proceed in this vein?
The Federal Constitutional Court has unequivocally established that the state may not deprive anyone of the minimum subsistence level. Never, under any circumstances. The right to a dignified subsistence level is not negotiable, it is enshrined in the Basic Law.
And yet the government is now going ahead and tightening the sanctions on Bürgergeld recipients. Why? Because they’re bowing to pressure from the Right. Because they believe they can score points by being tough on the poor, instead of actually getting serious about tackling poverty. Cutting benefits that are already so low that they’re barely enough to survive on is not support, but humiliation — it’s class war from above.
The Neue Grundsicherung is not about “incentives”, as the government likes to claim; it’s about mistrust, control, and punishment. The unemployed are being criminalized instead of being given a fair go. The coalition must decide: does it stand with the people, or does it only have contempt for them? We in Die Linke will not allow the fundamental right to human dignity to be sacrificed for the sake of populist symbolic politics.
How do you explain the fact that smear campaigns against people who depend on the welfare state so often find fertile ground?
For decades, politicians, corporate lobbies, and certain media outlets have parroted the same story: that poverty is self-inflicted, that people need “more incentives” to work, and that social benefits are a “burden”. This neoliberal narrative has become deeply ingrained in people’s minds. It diverts attention from the real causes and effects of social inequality, such as low wages, housing shortages, the uneven concentration of wealth, and tax evasion by the rich.
Instead of discussing real improvements like ensuring higher basic rates, benefits that secure people’s livelihoods, abolishing sanctions, making it easier to access assistance, structures are once again being tinkered with as if poverty were merely an administrative problem.
When crises come along — inflation, soaring energy prices, job insecurity — the resulting anger is not directed upward at the profiteers, but downward at those who have the least. That’s politically deliberate. Pitting the poor against each other shields the rich from criticism.
For weeks, the Union, backed by employers, has been waging war on the welfare state. There are proposals to scrap Pflegegrad 1 (“care level 1”, which refers to care for those with minor impairments), to restrict sick pay, and Chancellor Merz has been criticizing the increased spending on youth welfare and integration support. We’re also seeing major attacks on statutory health insurance. If the influential CDU Economic Council has its way, in future we will be forced to pay out of pocket for services at the dentist or orthodontist or take out private insurance. That means higher costs for the many, along with a reduction in quality of service. What political and economic project are Merz and his allies pursuing in terms of the broader picture?
When Merz proposes scrapping Pflegegrad 1, cutting sick pay, or privatizing health insurance services, he’s following a very clear line: he wants to lighten the load for the rich, while employees, pensioners, the sick, and those in need of care will be forced to foot the bill. This is the old neoliberal playbook, and Merz is its most devoted disciple.
The Union and its allies in the employers’ associations dream of a country in which social security would once again be rendered a privilege — only accessible to those who can afford it. The rest are expected to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, “provide for themselves”, and “take personal accountability”. That means every man for himself, instead of everyone together for each other and for a better life for all. Meanwhile, public funds continue to be pumped into armaments, corporate subsidies, and tax breaks for the wealthy. This means cutting funding to the welfare state and redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top.
The welfare state and solidarity are not mere cost factors; they’re the very foundation of democracy and social peace. And we all want and need a good, a better welfare state in our lives. If Merz and his allies set out to dismantle it, they do so not out of economic necessity, but out of political calculation. They aim to secure power by protecting the wealthy and serving their interests, and thereby weaken social cohesion. Our counter-project is rooted in justice, solidarity, and a welfare state that belongs to everyone, and not just to those who can buy their way in.
Among other things, the federal government has set up a commission to present proposals for a “modern and de-bureaucratized welfare state”. The focus is on Bürgergeld, Wohngeld (housing allowance), and Kinderzuschlag (child allowance), with the idea that these separate benefits may end up being merged, thereby accelerating certain bureaucratic processes. What’s your assessment of the commission’s mandate and make-up?
On paper, it all sounds good at first: less bureaucracy, more clarity, simpler procedures. But if you look at who is sitting on the commission, it quickly becomes clear where this is heading: Ministry officials talking amongst themselves, barely any representation from social welfare organizations, no voices from the field, no input from affected parties or from poverty researchers. In essence, it’s bureaucracy managing itself.
A welfare state does not become more humane when it’s “optimized” from above in a technocratic manner. A modern welfare state should prioritize people, not their file numbers. But that’s precisely what’s at risk of being lost. Instead of discussing real improvements like ensuring higher basic rates, benefits that secure people’s livelihoods, abolishing sanctions, making it easier to access assistance, structures are once again being tinkered with as if poverty were merely an administrative problem.
Back to the commission: reducing bureaucracy can be a sensible move if it makes it easier for people to apply for benefits. But that usually also means that more people apply and costs rise. It’s hard to imagine the government wants that. How clear are the commission’s savings targets? What have you heard about their work?
There’s no transparency in this commission; it’s all backroom discussions. A modern welfare state is not measured by the billions saved, but by the number of people whom it enables to live without fear. If reducing bureaucracy becomes a pretext for cuts, that’s not progress, it’s social regression.
The state pension is also under attack. The Federal Minister for Economic Affairs, Katherina Reiche, says we’re all going to have to work longer. Merz says we should be demanding more of people. According to the coalition agreement, the government plans to examine a “new parameter for an overall provision level across all three pension pillars” by the middle of the current legislative period. That means it is seeking to recalibrate the provision level of the three pillars: the general statutory pension fund, occupational pensions, and private pension provision. This will likely result in a further reduction in the level of statutory pensions and a strengthening of the market for private pension schemes.
Provision for old age should not be fodder for financial speculation; it’s a basic human right. The statutory pension must once again be the backbone of retirement provision: we must ensure that it is robust, reliable, and rooted in solidarity.
Social policy can’t just be reactive. We need a proactive left-wing agenda that strengthens social security, prevents poverty, combats social inequality, and addresses the issue of distribution.
Let me be clear: anyone who sees pensioners collecting empty bottles for money and then demands that people should work until even later in life has completely lost touch with reality. We need a statutory pension that protects people against poverty.
Recently, a group of young Union MPs questioned the compromise reached between the CDU and SPD to secure the pension level at at least 48 percent until 2031. How do you interpret that? Are Merz and Secretary General Spahn not in control? What does that mean for the internal divisions and the shift to the right within the Union? Or are these all just coordinated good-cop-bad-cop tactics aimed at putting even more pressure on the SPD?
This isn’t a dispute over details; it’s part of a larger project — namely, grinding down the welfare state step by step and replacing social security with personal liability. The fact that the pension compromise that’s been negotiated is now being called into question shows above all that the Union is disunited and fractured. At the same time, right-wing factions within the Union are putting pressure on the SPD and the public. The goal is clear: to permanently lower the pension level and attack the weakest.
This Union is socially blind and believes whatever the market dictates, be it in terms of pensions, health, or education. Right-wing rhetoric, fantasies of spending cuts, and myths of personal responsibility are its trademark. As a result, they’re ultimately strengthening the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and right-wing extremist conceptions of society.
Speaking of the SPD: what advice would you give the party when it comes to the welfare state debate?
I would tell them they need to adopt a clear stance again, take social security seriously, and represent the interests of the majority, not those of the markets or their own coalition partners. Anyone who forgets this will ultimately lose their political base in the long term. The SPD’s election results speak for themselves. It’s not enough to talk about social policy while Merz, Reiche, and their ilk are working every day to dismantle the welfare state.
The SPD must draw clear red lines if they want to regain credibility, for example when it comes to pension levels, Bürgergeld, and care. They must not adopt the rhetoric spouted by the Union. Once you start essentially parroting the same old austerity arguments with slight variations, you lose the trust of the people who depend on the welfare state, you lose as a party, and you fuel the shift to the right.
When there are major attacks on the welfare state, the Left is often busy waging defensive campaigns. Is that really enough?
No, defensive campaigns are not enough. It goes without saying that we should fight back against attacks on Bürgergeld, pensions, care, and healthcare services. But social policy can’t just be reactive. We need a proactive left-wing agenda that strengthens social security, prevents poverty, combats social inequality, and addresses the issue of distribution. It’s a question of steering the societal debate, not just reacting to planned austerity measures.
Those who only ever adopt a defensive position will ultimately cede control of the narrative to the people who are seeking to dismantle the welfare state. We have the answers, we have the proposals, we have good solutions. What we need now is greater exchange among those who are fighting to build a different welfare state, more pressure in the streets, more creativity, and more acts of solidarity against these ruthless policies.
What matters now is that we continue to wage our defensive campaigns while at the same time advancing our vision of a just welfare state.
From my practical experience as a social worker, I know exactly what is lacking and what could be done, and the whole thing is also financially viable. The problem is that many people panic as soon as they hear that, because the only question they can ask themselves is how it will all be paid for. The neoliberal mantra limits our imagination of the kind of world that could exist. We need strong responses to address this. We also need to focus more on wealth taxation and inequality in Germany and actually calculate to what extent social security, care, education, and poverty-proof pensions could be financed via a wealth tax over the years. This isn’t wishful thinking; it’s a matter of political priorities and justice.
So where do we go from here?
What matters now is that we continue to wage our defensive campaigns — against welfare cuts, rising rents, and unfair wages — while at the same time advancing our vision of a just welfare state. We must demonstrate that social justice and tangible improvements in people’s daily lives are achievable. We have to show what is possible and put concrete alternatives on the table: We can do this by advocating, for example, for a sanction-free, poverty-proof basic income, the construction of social housing, better collective bargaining coverage, a higher minimum wage, and investments in education and health. Our goal is social security for all and a society in which no one is allowed to fall through the cracks.
You left the Greens in 2023, partly because of the party’s stance on European asylum policy. Now you represent Die Linke in the Bundestag. What’s your greatest hope for the party, and what do you see as the biggest challenge?
My greatest hope is that we manage to reach even more people. I believe we’re on the right track. We’re showing that politics can’t be out of touch with the real world, that we have to address people’s real problems and not just discuss them in the halls of power. The greatest challenge is reaching people who perceive our demands as radical. But it isn’t radical to stand up for humanity and human dignity, or for your own improved social security. What is radical is ignoring the realities of people’s lives. In a time in which a far-right party is gaining ground, we must make it clear: the AfD does not represent the majority, but the wealthiest; they just peddle this notion in order to push their racist agenda. We must raise our voices together against fascism. And we will!
Translated by Diego Otero and Louise Pain for Gegensatz Translation Collective.