This is something I see brought up every so often in these circles. The classic example is people who are quick to condemn AES (actually existing socialist) projects. But in my observation, it can extend beyond that too, at times fueling what get called “struggle sessions”, where people are, in essence, acting defensive of ideas to a degree that can lose sight of the collective spirit and instead focus on pursuit of individual correctness. A mistaken liberal read of this might say, “Yes, people are being too uptight and need to recognize we have the same enemy” while touting some kind of “big tent” philosophy. Mao notes in Combat Liberalism that one type of liberalism is the following:

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

So I must make clear, I’m not suggesting the problem is criticism itself. Where I’m attempting self-crit here (including to my own self) is in the haste that can accompany attempted crit, without first making an assessment of what is going on. To place this in context of actually existing examples rather than hypotheticals, consider the US/zionist war of aggression against Iran. A surface level analysis of this, especially one that primarily touches on information coming from imperialist media, may come away with a view that “both sides are bad” or some such nonsense.

The fear of being wrong, the desire to be associated with virtue, can lead to a sort of hypervigilant and overly swift need to condemn “wrongness.” There’s actually a Mao quote for this too, in spite of what he says in Combat Liberalism, in Oppose Book Worship:

There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, criticizing this and condemning that when they have only seen the surface of things or minor details. Such purely subjective nonsensical talk is indeed detestable. These people are bound to make a mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses and prove incapable of solving any problem at all.

So on the one hand, you have the need to hold to a disciplined revolutionary line and on the other hand you have the need to build this on a strong foundation.

When we think of marxism as science more so than ideology, I think this can make it clearer what the goal is. A scientist has to be rigorous or they will make many wrong assumptions. A scientist often has to reach for things like the null hypothesis, essentially to try to prove themself wrong, in order to guard against confirmation bias.

When we understand the nature of a situation, then we are better equipped to approach it with effective tactics. Understanding the nature of a situation may mean waiting to speak on it until further information has been acquired. This need not be passive. It can happen through active investigation, even in a friendly manner at times. As it is, people are usually more willing to give information when approached in a friendly manner. This is not to be confused with “going along to get along” in organizing with them or letting any ideological line be the dominant one. It need not be seen as peaceful even; some contexts are not. A sniper who takes aim first will undoubtedly have better accuracy, but this does not make the purpose of their aiming any more peaceful or passive.