By the way, why actually 'taboo'? Or – for whom is it 'taboo'? Somehow, almost imperceptibly, once forbidden topics – well, for example, about transvestites or the abolition of abortion – turned into banal, everyday ones. True, the 'tabooists' (or is it 'tabooins'?) managed to formulate the question somewhat oddly (I quote): 'Should one go abroad to earn money or be a patriot?' Already funny, or should I repeat?
So, for thirty minutes the audience wrestled with the question of the morality of going abroad to earn money.
The selection of opponents – the main characters of the program – is interesting. The arguments 'for leaving' were presented by the 'director of an enterprise that provides consulting on employment abroad.' Which, you will agree, raises doubts about the impartiality of the approach. Yes, she said, everyone who can go should go – you will earn money, gain experience, see the world. Her opponent was an 'English teacher who worked for a long time in Portugal' (who, when, under what conditions – answers to these questions remained off-screen). His position was that, supposedly, abroad is not so good. The money invested in the trip does not pay off quickly. Therefore, dear compatriots, you need to work here and 'start with yourself!' (though the logic, frankly, was weak with that guy). This 'start with yourself' became a kind of leitmotif of the entire talk show.
And the audience did not argue. For example, one of the participants told about how he worked in the Czech Republic and sent the money he earned to his mother and child. So did he start with himself or not? A young girl worked as a nanny in Paris, managed to save money and bring it home. Did she start with herself? Did those doctors, for example, who, having worked abroad and accumulated not only money for the latest PVC windows and household appliances, but also unique treatment technologies, bring all this wealth home? I think the answer should be unequivocal – they all started with themselves. Thinking about their relatives, about their loved ones, and therefore – about the country.
However, the audience was divided into two equal parts. And that meant that those who were 'for' had opponents. Their speeches were greatly united by a red-haired patriot: 'Our country is already degrading. So who will lift it up if not the Ukrainian people? Therefore, we need to be true patriots!'
And finally, the main hero of the supporters of 'not allowing' used his 'secret weapon,' addressing in English a resident of Helsinki present in the audience (usually such a technique hits a 'Soviet person' like a knockout). The hot Finnish lady seemed not to fully understand not only the intensity of passions in the hall, but also the question itself. Therefore, she carefully repeated to us, the savages, the basic European truth: you can go anywhere to work (legally, of course!) as long as your documents are in order. This will give you the opportunity to gain experience that you can apply when you return to your homeland. The audience burst into applause. No comments...
Her laconic answer is closest to common sense. And it consists of the following. Going abroad to earn money allows, firstly, to earn a decent (by domestic standards) amount in a relatively short time (1-2 years). Secondly, to improve professionally (for qualified specialists). To bring new technologies to Ukraine and start your own business. Finally, to learn a foreign language, communicate with people, see the world.
What does the country get as a result? Firstly, the 'load on the ground' decreases – there will be one less unemployed person at home. Secondly, our citizen will bring the earned penny to the 'home nest' and, 'buying Ukrainian,' will invest it into our economy. Thirdly, chipping in with a friend, he will open a mini-factory somewhere in Baryshevka for the production of roofing tiles (using NASA technology). That's how it is. And whether this is patriotic – it's for you to decide.
And now imagine a similar discussion somewhere in France, China or Poland. What, can't? And it's not surprising. A free person in a free world works where he wants and lives where he likes. And only we are still deciding – 'to allow or not to allow,' whether we are patriots after 'this' or not. And therefore the impression of the program is best expressed by the words of Archpriest Avvakum: 'Let us return to the first and see why this is important in the fifth place, and we will see that in the fifth place it is not important at all...'