Agree with most of above comment by SHGO98. My comments have mostly been driven by the tenor of OP's statements such as "Schizophrenia obviously does not exist" and "It is impossible for psychiatry to be scientific". How about " Schizophrenia... is just a wastebasket for disturbing behavior". In working as a therapist on a mental health unit at Rikers Island jail for many years, the whole jail was a house of those with "disturbing behavior". How is it that a small subset of those inmates were deemed patients, and many of these patients had symptoms of psychosis that clearly set them apart. You can take away the label "schizophrenia" and call it what you will. There are some who distinctly suffer from mental illness, not simply "disturbing behavior". There is nothing new in the claim that mental illness is a label thrown on the disenfranchised so the power elite can maintain control. See Thomas Szasz. I don't believe his views are prominent in current mental health thinking.

Certainly the DSM is an attempt to construct a grid of boundaries that is imposed on a continuum of human problems-- problems that don't easily lend themselves to being neatly divided into boxes. It is inherently flawed, but having no classification system for mental problems would probably make it harder to attempt treatment. Understanding the etiology of such problems is equally vexing. It is a young science, but it's theories of neurochemical causation, or even earlier psychogenic explanations of mental illness are no more "theoretical" than the theories underlying how the sun produces energy-- they are all part of the process of hypotheses building and testing that constitutes science.

It might be helpful for those eager to look for broader, societally induced explanations of mental illness to visit an in-patient unit near them. I have worked in such places for 40 years. That person talking to themselves, eyes focused on some unworldly plane, screaming. How did they get that way ? What about all the research looking at genetic predisposition, at neurotransmitter imbalance. Sure, there are some controversial critiques of this, as cited by OP, but the vast majority of experts in the field believe that something is neurochemically askew. Something that may interact with socioeconomic factors, but something in that individual's brain is different from those without such symptoms. The fact that drug companies may oversell partial solutions or MDs prescribe ineffective drugs doesn't mean they are causing the symptoms, nor does it prove that the causal factors are located in a flawed and exploitative social system, although such a system is certainly an ancillary condition that contributes to individual suffering.

Maybe some should take a step back and remind themselves just how stark a difference exists between asking questions about the composition of water, and trying to understand the relationship between brain and mind. The object of study makes a big difference in how far scientific inquiry can progress ! Because the brain/mind is so complex, perhaps unfathomable, does that mean we should give up ? Of course socioeconomic and cultural factors affect this process, and the profit motive of a capitalist culture undoubtedly leads to exploitation of mental health efforts-- and even adds to the suffering of the individual. No science occurs in a political vacuum (just look at climate science), yet OP makes what I consider irresponsible claims about the illegitimacy of psychology/psychiatry.

Any introductory text on psychology or psychiatry contains ample description of the multicausal nature of emotional suffering. No such text would have the locus of explanation solely residing in the individual -- almost all such books would insure that cultural context, socioeconomic strata, and biological factors are all seen as contributing factors to mental illness. That includes viewing the profit driven, competitive nature of latter day culture as contributing to anxiety, depression, and even psychosis.

I don't believe I am selling a black and white version so as to dismiss how society can affect the individual. I am simply responding to a faulty characterization of the mental health professions.

Is it accurate to speak with such certainty about the causal factors in mental illness being solely socioeconomic in nature ? Most schizophrenics report disruption of thought and/or auditory hallucinations. These tend to go along with social withdrawal from friends and family. There seems no question that they suffer immensely. I have worked with such people for 40 years. Can you really take their self- reports, and the accumulated observations of those that work in mental health, and say these problems are best explained by the evils of the capitalist system ? And the mental health professionals are all collectively being used by the power elite to maintain inequality ? Such a narrative, while satisfying to those seeking change to our flawed system, does not fit the observed data. What about cross-cultural rates of psychosis that includes non-captitalist cultures ? Why do some tribal people in Africa, or Innuit of the Arctic also display symptoms of schizophrenia? By your reasoning, such groups should be free of such problems because they only emerge from a dysfunctional capitalist socioeconomic setting. My sense is your argument is faulty.