Чудесное от автора статьи, которую я недавно разобрал - и от ММТ
Вот, кстати, Хорхе Марти, автор статьи http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later-part-two.htm , считает, что в государственном аппарате Кубы есть активные сталинисты, т.е. прокапиталистические фракции.

Я даже не знаю, как это прокомментировать.
Надо думать, что Горбачев и Ельцин были активными сталинистами.

А вот, что пишет автор (фамилия его не Марти, а Мартин), на которого он ссылается (в первой части этой статьи):

The foreign policy of the Stalinist bureaucracy was based on so-called “peaceful coexistence” in opposition to the revolutionary internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky’s Soviet Russia.

То-то бы удивились Ходжа с Мао, узнав, что "мирное существование" придумал Сталин, когда победил Троцкого!
Хотя в СССР 20-х этот вопрос был сугубо теоретическим - тогда для нас Финляндия и то была серьезным противником, от которого еле Карелию отбили.

Che Guevara defended the planning of the economy and the need to industrialise the country against the Stalinists who argued for the use of market mechanisms and material incentives in the running of the economy.

Автор настолько невежествен, что не отличает хрущевцев от сталинистов? Ну где он прочитал, что Сталин ратовал за рыночные механизмы?
А с учетом того, что как раз в годы написания "ЭПС в СССР" троцкисты активно симпатизировали рыночнику Тито против Сталина, могу посоветовать автору только поискать рыночников в своем лагере.

This dependence of the Cuban revolution on the Stalinist USSR had important negative consequences in all fields

С учетом того, что кубинская революция произошла совсем незадолго перед XXII съездом, автор изобрел машину времени.
Это во времена гнусной кампании против памяти Сталина, развязанной хрущевской кликой, СССР был сталинистским?

В продолжении статьи (см. ссылку в начале поста), автор несколько исправился - совершенно верно раскритиковав сначала дэнистов на современной Кубе:

These measures that are being proposed, taken as a whole, can be called the “Chinese way” or any other name, but in practice they are the same measures that were introduced originally in China with the aim of developing the economy and which ended up with the restoration of capitalism. In the Cuban case, the adoption and furthering of these kinds of measures would not only entail the risk of leading to the restoration of capitalism, but would not even achieve any of the economic results of China, precisely because the conditions are very different. Among other things, Cuba does not have a massive reserve of cheap labour, or the capacity of the state to create infrastructures for the export industry. Furthermore, the world economic recession has destroyed the export markets from which China benefited originally.

, а затем "югославскую модель" и попытки ее применения:

As part of this debate on the renewal of Cuban socialism, some have proposed the idea of self-management as a way forward. Pedro Campos and others have signed a document in which they raise 13 programmatic measures as part of the debate towards the IV Party Congress that will take place later on this year. Without doubt, the document raises a number of interesting proposals, including the formation of “workers’ councils in all workplaces”. It is clear that Pedro Campos is deeply worried about the problems the Cuban economy is facing and is trying to find solutions which imply the full participation of the workers in the management of the economy and the decision making process at all levels. On this, we agree.
However, we think that the main idea of the document is not only wrong but also very dangerous. Basically, it proposes that in small and medium-sized enterprises “the property over the means of production would be given directly to workers in full, either through sale, paid up front or on credit, or transferred by the State”, and that the “companies of national or strategic interest” would be “co-managed between the State and the Workers’ Collective, where ownership and administration could or could not be shared by the relevant State body, handed over partially or completely as a lease or in usufruct to the workers”. In all these companies, “the form of payment of wages” would be replaced by “the equitable sharing out of part of the profits”.
This means that ownership of companies would be handed over to the workers who work in them and they, instead of receiving wages would share out any profits. This system which is being proposed is very similar to the “socialist self-management” which was implemented in Yugoslavia and which led to the economic collapse of that country and later on to its break up. This type of ownership and sharing out of profits inevitably generates an outlook which is not a collective one, but rather individual of each group of workers in each company. If there were, for instance, two transport companies in the same city, the workers in each one of them would be pushed to compete with the workers in the other in order to get higher profits to share out (this is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia).

Вот тут-то и пора задуматься, что дело не в "сталинизме", а в чем-то ином.
Однако автор, справедливо пройдясь по титоистам и дэнистам, не мог не вернуться к своему пунктику:

In his brilliant analysis of the Stalinist degeneration of the USSR, Leon Trotsky insisted that, “the planned economy needs workers’ democracy as much as the human body needs oxygen”.

Ни анархо-синдикалисткого "рабочего самоуправления", ни приватизации по Дэну в сталинском СССР не было, но анализировать надо всё равно по Троцкому! И троцкисты, выставляя Троцкого едва ли не пророком, еще что-то говорят о культе личности Сталина!
Однако же, возвращаясь к исходному пункту, надо добавить, что прокапиталистические фракции в современной КП Кубы "сталинистами" Мартин не назвал, это за него сделал Атанасов - эпигоны вообще имеют склонность превосходить учителей в глупостях.