After reading a thread full of people claiming "accelerationism is when things get worse" I felt the need to clarify that this is not actually what the term means. Perhaps it has gotten famous on the internet for the argument "revolutions happen when things get bad" but this is actually completely unrelated to the term itself. It's not actually hard to find content on the internet that will explain it but I assume most people are either too lazy or the term has been so misapplied that attempting to read anything about what it actually is becomes extremely confusing.
Here is the basic argument of left-accelerationism: Capitalism has already unleashed enormous technological, logistical, computational, and productive capacities. The left should not retreat from these forces but rather we should repurpose and redirect them.
It was created as a reaction to leftist movements of the early 2000s "folk politics of localism, direct action, and relentless horizontalism". The manifesto I linked is actually a fairly good explanation of what the left-accelerationism actually is and I would recommend actually reading it instead of relying on the caricatures of accelerationism you see on the internet.
Left Accelerationism opposes decentralized this activism without coordination, nostalgia for simpler forms of life, the performative rejection of complexity and planning. Rather than advocating everyone get involved in local affinity groups and knocking on doors asking their neighbors to join, Accelerationism embraces the use of modern tools for organizing whether it be technology or organizational structures. What they are actually advocating for is institution-building, long-term strategy, technological literacy, computational planning, hegemonic political organization, large-scale coordination and so on.
The reality of it is that this is already should be the Marxist position. It is really a response to the popularity of left-libertarians, populists, primitivists, etc. The argument left accelerationists make is we should not fetishize pre-capitalist society and should embrace things like technological advancement and globalization.
There is actually no argument in this text saying, "capitalism must get worse so we can have a revolution". Arguably one could interpret the opposite from these texts, technology has already advanced to a point where all scarcity is now purely socially imposed.
Accelerationism does not argue "we should make society worse". I realize the term has baggage from Nick Land but even it that context it really still just means embracing technological progress and modernity. Accelerationists generally did a really shitty job of communicating their ideas and Nick Land has gone out of his way to be as edgy as possible (a lot of his apocalyptic tweaker shit caused confusion). I am sure some people on the internet have self-identified with the misinterpretation which only increases the confusion.
You are welcome to still disagree with these ideas but at least be aware that this is what actually is meant by "left Accelerationism". I am not the first person who has recognized everyone is using the term incorrectly, if you think my writing is shit you can find another article on the topic here.
TLDR: Accelerationism is not about accelerating the contradictions of capitalism. It normally are refers to accelerating technology, productive capacity, modernity although there is a lot of disagreement about this.