Basically, one of the key points of D&G's Anti-Oedipus is that capitalism — through markets, commodification, alienation, abstraction, globalization, telecommunications, technology, capital, financial markets, money, etc. — has this extremely strong decoding force (the process of breaking down established meanings, interpretations, and hierarchies), deterritorializing force (the process of detaching things from necessary concrete associations, making them infinitely reconfigurable, reassemblable, non-local, networked), and force of creative destruction. They identify this with a sort of societal schizophrenia.
The other half of AO's analysis is that capitalism also has a recoding and reterritorialization arm as well; that's what fascism is, often, as well as corporatism. Capitalism feeds on contradictions, crises, creative destruction, market bubbles, and new technologies, but then capital turns around and tries to lock it all down for its own benefit, recoding it in familiar traditional norms and symbols or through regulatory capture. At the extreme, that looks basically like fascism. Fascism is the flesh-mask of capital.
Simultaneously, they're really interested in the anti-Freudian/Lacanian idea that desire is actually positive and productive. It doesn't stem from a lack, and it doesn't need to be — and isn't inherently — this highly symbolic Greek tragedy playing out in the unconscious that's ineluctably mediated by sociocultural symbols, and it doesn't need to be routed, controlled, interpreted (Oedipalized). Instead, it stems from an inherent drive not toward a particular place, but along a particular vector — a sort of will to power, a natural libidinal energy produced and producing by various organic and social machines, flowing between the connections those machines make as a result of their desires, alongside other flows like material and ideas.
Crucially, D&G side with deterritorialization and the freeing of desire in this! While the Left spends all its time bemoaning these abstractive, uprooting, alienating, decoding, rearranging forces, wishing reterritorialization and the Oedipalization of desire, just in its own image, D&G think these forces of capital that seem so alien and scary to us could be positive, even creative, in conjunction with unbound, unrepressed (un-Oedipalized) desire as a productive, outward facing force. Then, the best way to defeat capitalism — a thought reinforced by Lyotard's ideas about desire — is perhaps to try to accelerate this deterritorializing force while trying to beat back the reterritorializing wing. The idea is to use the space for new possibilities, the change, the shifts, the destructions of the old, and the new desires it evinces in us which it can never fully satisfy to push us past capitalism. Hence the famous accelerationist fragment from AO:
"But which is the revolutionary path? Is there one? – To withdraw from the world market, as Samir Amin advises Third World Countries to do, in a curious revival of the fascist 'economic solution'? Or might it be to go in the opposite direction? To go further still, that is, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization? For perhaps the flows are not yet deterritorialized enough, not decoded enough, from the viewpoint of a theory and practice of a highly schizophrenic character. Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to 'accelerate the process,' as Nietzsche put it: in this matter, the truth is that we haven't seen anything yet. (239-40)"
Another important point that Deleuze and Guattari make in Anti-Oedipus which Land will later feed on is the idea that "nothing has ever died of its own internal contradictions": contrary to the vulger notion of accelerationism floating around, and contrary to traditional Marxist dialectical materialism, they believed — and Land later follows up with this — that capitalism adapts, absorbs, and only grows stronger from its internal contradictions (through reterritorializations, among other strategies) when left to its own devices; thus, even they are not claiming that an indescriminate "making capitalism worse" will lead out of capitalism:
"The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism's natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way." (AO)
As Alex Williams has noted before, [thinking we can accelerate all the workings of capitalism, including its worst exploitations and suffering, to hasten its inevitable doom] is not a position that anyone has ever held. Okay, let’s qualify that a bit. It might be the case that some people have held this position, and that some of them now even think of themselves as 'accelerationists’. So let’s limit it to the claim that it is not a position that anyone in the #Accelerate reader has ever held.
Not even Nick Land? No. Not even Nick Land. He likes capitalism. He wants to accelerate it, but not because it will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. What about Deleuze and Guattari? No. According to them 'nothing has ever died of contradictions’, and so whatever deterritorialising force they aim to accelerate, and whatever end they aim to accelerate it towards, neither is a contradiction or its inevitable collapse. What about Srnicek and Williams? No. Much of what they do can be seen as breaking with D&G (and a fortiori with Land), and returning to a much more Marxist position, but they explicitly refuse to see the transition between capitalism and post-capitalism as a dialectical sublation brought about by the intensification of contradictions.
Well, what about Marx then?! Just how much Marx is invested in a substantive notion of contradiction as the metaphysical driving force of history is a question up for debate, and I’m not about to stumble into that particular hermeneutic hornets’ nest. Nevertheless, it’s clear that even if we take the strongest historical determinist (e.g., dialectical-materialist) reading of Marx we can find, he would still reject the inference from the claim that the increasing self-evidence of capitalist parasitism will bring about the expropriation of expropriation all on its own to the claim that we should therefore attempt to 'speed the system towards its inevitable doom’.
None of these canonical figures, and nobody else within the collection, wants inevitable doom (although, admittedly, Nick Land’s vision might look like this to everyone but him).