Sometimes you have to scratch your head and wonder how people with so little to add have such strong opinions on those who have substantially shaped the thinking of the age.
Nine times out of ten, it is Freud who is right, and his critics who are snared in childish errors.
Take the 'infantile seduction' controversy. Freud's finding of childhood memories of 'seduction' - molestation we should say - amongst his analysands was so ubiquitous that he initally assumed that sexual relations with children were commonplace, if disguised. Later he corrected his view to say, roughly, that these 'memories' were not accurate reports of events, but were important evidence of the way that infantile sexuality developed.
His critics - principally Jeffrey Masson - accuse Freud of suppressing evidence of child molestation. But he did no such thing. His assessment was correct. Child sexual abuse, while a terrible thing, is, as he came to argue, rare. His critics' arguments suffered from the inability to understand Freud's point that the subconscious was real, but that its products were not literally true. Freud's theory is subtle - and, I think, correct. His critics view that the only choice is whether or not to believe the children is just moronic.
The anti-psychiatry movement (Laing, etc.) for the most part attack Freud for the poor practice ( and poorer theories) that became commonplace in the therapy industry after his death. But Freud was not responsible for the massively mushrooming therapy industry after his death, and he would have been apalled by the unscientific farrago that goes under that name today. He made no great claims for the 'talking cure'. Most importantly he did not argue that childhood experiences *determine* adult behaviour (a prejudice that inhabits therapy today). He did not believe that anyone who disagreed with a therapist was 'in denial' - though it suits therapists to argue so today.
Likewise the behaviourist/logical positivist dismissal of the subconscious as a metaphysical nonsense is itself burdened by that dead-end literalism that insists what cannot be held is not real.
So-called Marxist critiques of Freud are mostly very weak, attacking the incidental prejudices that he - like most people - shared, rather than engaging the stronger points of his theory. So, typically, they uncover 'evidence' that Freud naturalised phenomena that were actually socially constructed. No doubt he did tend to project the family back in time ahistorically, and his speculations on wider questions of history and culture are just that, speculations. But his real insight into the distinction between the conscious and unconscious mind stands.