There’s more to say than I can fit in those damn comments (tumblr isn’t set up for discussion is it?) Deleuze didn’t think Nietzsche’s will to power was about power over someone or having control, but about affirming one’s difference (and differential calculus blah blah). Macht not Reich. He’s not egalitarian, but he doesn’t seem to be a state-capitalist of today, or even pro -monarchy or -aristocracy like Aristotle (at least he ridicules the virtues that Aristotle relied on as constituting aristocracy and monarchy).
First, I think it’s important to interpret his discussion of “Types” in light of his other discussions, namely those pertaining to the misguidedness of stark dualisms. It’s conventional to speak of atomic Types, but - especially for later Nietzsche - they are merely that—convenient; from ‘Dionysus’s-eye-view’, these Types are gross miscalculations, desperate, self-deceptive endeavors to control Becoming by stamping it with Being.
Now I’ll speak conventionally (and this is a redundancy, because speaking itself is conventional, watered-down reality [Gay Science 354]): Nietzsche does advocate the master Type, unequivocally. He advocates the “right mixture” but only insofar as the slave’s POV is a means to the end of enhancing the master’s. The scope of the slave is tinted by ressentiment—and not just tinted: the slave’s perspective is an ass-backwards distortion. The free spirit is one who sprouts as many eyes as possible as it were. Eyes high and eyes low. One who can do this is a master. If you just have eyes high you’re a conservative tool.
This is where it gets funny for me, because most of my followers are presumably leftists. Nietzsche, throughout his oeuvre, champions rank-ordering [Rangordnung] or hierarchical-thought. All too common is the conflation of Nietzsche’s perspectivism with pluralism. This is a travesty and a joke, an appropriation of Nietzsche by nihilists. Though it’s not like he didn’t expect to be misunderstood. Leftists, though they may physically read it, do not read this dimension of Nietzsche, typically. It clashes with their egalitarian agenda, so they pretend it isn’t there, literally. A direct consequence of his emphasis on rank-ordering is that the voice of the downtrodden is relegated to the status of “wrong”. It is merely envious, merely vengeful. This is all merely my opinion of Nietzsche anyway. One other I’ve seen eye to eye with on this matter is ludimagister - you might want to ask him what he thinks.
Also he’s against the state, just as much as he’s derisive of anarchist “dogs”. He calls the state a cold monster. And I don’t think he would be for capitalism, anymore than Plato glorified merchants. He advocates art. Capitalism is probably most antithetical to art than any other thing I can think of, in its emphasis on production of anything anyone wants (the they, herd, crowd), or its insistence on usefulness (slavery). So one can see why leftists like him. It sounds more compatible with the free spirit than the master. And the ubermensch, in my conception, is just someone who has complete control over his affects and over his thoughts. Whereas we seem to be more like sponges of info or vibes.