Did you get this idea from Ricouer's 'masters (or hermeneutics) of suspicion?" Because that isn't quite what he means. But if not, then I still wouldn't characterize Freud or Marx as anti-rationality as such, or that the former has been proven empirically wrong (his thought is metaphorical---just because the id, ego, and superego aren't the literal structure of our brain doesn't mean they're 'wrong' concepts) or the latter has been defeated by human nature.
Anyway, Nietzsche has no real critiques because his system isn't one that really makes use of arguments or falsifiable empirical evidence. It's more something you just disagree with, whether you believe there are moral facts that humans can discover or Christianity is actually good or whatever. But there are some, if you're interested (Chesterton's or Phillipa Foot's "Nietzsche's Immoralism").
>Is it possible he was the most accurate of the post-enlightenment thinkers? If so, should the political, economic, and psychological work that was formulated with his ideas be regarded as the best? What groups or philosophies have extended his ideas into the modern age?
Well, I think so myself, but many disagree, even some in the continental philosophical tradition in which N.'s thought dominates, as well as the entire analytic tradition, and they have some pretty good arguments and reasons. For those who I think expanded upon his ideas, you have two camps (the former vastly larger, and I'll explain why in a bit): the one's who expanded on his ideas of critique or method, aka the whole continental tradition (e.g. Foucault, Derrida), and the ones who have extended upon his more normative aspects (e.g. Heidegger, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Alain de Benoist). A large reasons why the former camp is so much larger are a) N.'s ideas aren't very normative---he doesn't really tell us what to do so much as describe the state of Man and the world---so there isn't really a Nietzschean economics or political system outside of rough sketches or avoiding aspects he didn't like, and b) the normative parts we can extract from his work are wildly unpopular in this age (try arguing we should move toward a system like the Roman Aristocracy or exploitation is a good for the higher men), and c) most of the people living out N's ideas aren't in philosophy, but become artists or politicians or businessmen---the reason for which I can only speculate, and I'd say in large part because (under my understanding of N.) anyone trying to purpose new morals that calls themselves a Nietzschean is just shooting themselves in the foot.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Read Geras' "Marx and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend." But putting that aside, many Marxists believe people are solely the product of their material and resulting ideological reality. You cannot deny the current and past systems reward greed; who knows what humans would be like under a different kind of system.