Indeed this can be seen if you read Sartre himself. The problem is, as with most philosophers and with most of the subjects they cover, you can find passages in the late Sartre which do indeed cast aspersions on his own earlier existentialism. My argument is that this is fully understandable.
Early Sartre and its Relation to Marxism
Facticity, apparently, doesn’t apply to existentialists and Marxists – it only applied to everyone else. In fact Marxists don’t believe that existentialists really transcended their own facticity (class, etc.) either. Sartre himself also came to believe that existentialists didn’t truly transcend their facticity.
The Marxist Sartre
It’s fair to say that Sartre-as-Marxist, rather than Sartre-as-existentialist (forget the possible fusion), appears not to be at home anymore. At least you would expect that many postmodernists, and, earlier, many post-structuralists, have been against Sartre’s (Marxist) historical “totalisations” and his Marxist/Hegelian belief in “organic wholes”.They have been.