Whence Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche as the anti-dialectical thinker par excellence: the idea that one is essentially defined by the Other is that of a slave. The master, by contrast, is defined foremost by his self-evaluation as good, noble, "Arya"—the Other is an afterthought. https://twitter.com/unambivalence/status/1297580066906537989

Nietzsche: Dialectic is chosen only as a last resort. It's well known that it creates mistrust, that it is not very convincing. Nothing can be wiped away more easily than a dialectician's effect...It can only be self-defense in the hands of those who don't have any other weapons.

Deleuze: Is Nietzsche a "dialectician"? Not all relations between "same" and "other" are sufficient to form a dialectic, even essential ones: everything depends on the role of the negative in this relation. Nietzsche emphasises the fact that force has another force as its object.

Deleuze: The mania for representing, for being represented, for getting oneself represented; for having representatives and representeds: this is the mania that is common to all slaves...the slave, with its mediocre dialectical machine that exclaims to all the futility of escape.