This may sound suspiciously ancap, even in the old Nick Land and Ccru stuff, but you've got to remember that ancaps are essentially statist who renounce the justification for statism into their shitty Lockean philosophy. They defend the same things that the state upholds (like rent, waged labor, courts, etc.) on the basis of shit like natural law and the NAP. And from this, they argue that their society would be a stable, pure, free society - "free" in their definition, at least.
What accelerationists (the ones who aren't terrible, which is basically Ccru, Nick Land, and some newer people on the scene today) want is something far more chaotic and inhuman. One may admit that accelerating capital would be catastrophic on many levels, but the point isn't to accelerate capital towards some kind of utopia - at least, not in the short term. It's likely that acceleration and the collapse of balance and order that the state provides (at the cost of great subjugation and imperial domination) would leave many fascist patches in its wake, but it would also open up many spaces for decentralized exchange and insurrection to self-organize. And without the support of a state entity, these small patches of fascism are unlikely to survive.
A lot of this, remember, is being based off of Deleuzian theory, which dovetails with cybernetics and chaos theory. A lot of people trip up on this stuff because Deleuzian theory is very different from the Hegelian metaphysics most of leftism is inherited from. It's all about the regulation and transfer of energy. A lot of this also cashes out very nicely in stuff from C4SS (especially Kevin Carson) and Proudhon, but you've got to sort it out from ancap stuff.
It's also important to remember that the world accelerationism imagines is a very pluralistic one and in no way outright denies the possibility of communes and the like, if that's your thing.