I am not an expert on Baudrillards views, so my response will relate only to what Deleuze & Guattari wrote on this theme, often labled "accelerationism". However what I understand of Baudrillard's view leads me to believe he takes a vastly different approach and holds a vastly different understanding of what's at stake in this question, so I would always be sure to hold their views as distinct. For example, the expression 'tried to "extract the subversive energy" in capitalism they no longer see in the proletariat' wouldn't apply to them because they would never conceive of a group isolate as being a sufficient condition for a social transformation. It's always a question of what machines are between put to use or are operating between poles.
The first thing to do to understand what D&G mean when they invoke Nietzsche's text on the subversive potential of capitalist development is to understand THEIR specific concept of capitalism. The temptation to reduce what they're saying to either the Nietzschean fragment they quote, or the Marxist references elsewhere in Anti-Oedipus, would be to completely ignore all the differences they have from those philosophers.
So, firstly, let us define Capitalism
What is capitalism? It is approached two different ways in their work and it is not always explicit what the connection is.
At the broadest level, capitalism is to be defined as, a global social axiomatic that takes as it's object axioms realized by necessity through the institutions and apparatuses of States.
By "social" here one should understand that capitalism as a type of "machine" (in their terms) is productive of the "Social" insofar as its flows control the contents, the formation and reproduction of labor, the socialization of capital etc., but it can do this only via models of realization embodied in States. States should also be understood as heterogenous, and occupying differing positions in this global social axiomatic (as "centers" differ vastly in what they can do from "periphery" states e.g).
Before moving on, let's define these as well:
Axiom: "rules that deal directly with purely functional elements and relations whose nature is not specified and which are immediately realized in highly varied domains simultaneously" (ATP 454)
States: models of realization of particular axioms for the capitalist axiomatic; a pluralized set of regulatory apparatuses, effectively assuring that the axioms have the appropriate material and expressive matters required for the functioning --e.g. infrastructure and material requirements, legal frameworks and political alliances.
So, this is one broad scale definition of capitalism, but it is also necessary to see how it connects on a microlevel.
Capital acts (insofar as it is a type of semiotic operator) as the point of subjectification that constitutes all human beings as subjects; but some, the "capitalists," are subjects empowered to establish modes of existence -- forming the private subjectivity of capital, while the others, the "proletarians," or "workers/consumers" (in today's terms) are subjects of the statement of capital, i.e. subjected to the technical machines in which constant capital is effectuated. So the starting point is a dual regime of subjectivity/subjection and machinic enslavement (subjectivity put to the service of machines/productions). So, the important thing to note about this dual regime is that it operates both in terms of the production of subjectivity (the production of who you see yourself as, how you see yourself (as distinct from an "objective" stance), the creation of sensibilities and ethico-aesthetics) AND directly tying human organs to signs, procedures, diagrams, indices, type of machines, types of functions, types of languages, all of which comes to represent productive "assemblages".
Now, if capital is defined as a type of semiotic operator on one hand and as an axiomatic on the other, it first means that you can never define capitalism first and foremost as some type of globalizing system or structure, you start at what happens within and between subjects for the local aspect, and the continual replacements of object and machines and desires at the global scale. And you maintain a clear distinction between what is a function of state and what is of the semiotic of capital. I point this out because of the most common misinterpretations I've come across of "accelerationism" is people talking about accelerating the exploitation of capitalism and acceleration the destruction of the state. Neither idea make any sense from their perspective if only because the State transforms, it doesn't have an endpoint per se. And the focus of their exploration of this theme are avenues of opening, or avenues in the service of new modes of existence, new modes of freedom... so accelerating exploitation would be like accelerating fascism, the very thing they're explicitly writing against.
Acceleration as they mention the term in the famous quote below is related to the process of decoding and deterritorialization of particular flows:
“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 still further, 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 a 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.”
To break this down you must be clear about what a code is, as defined much much earlier in this book.
Codes are relative to particular domains, expressing specific relations between qualified elements that cannot be subsumed by a higher formal unity (overcoding) except by transcendence and in an indirect fashion.
Decoding historically has accelerated because decoding and deterritorialization is the first half of the modus operandi of capitalism as an axiomatic. So already you see that they are not primitivists (espousing a going back) or anarchists (espousing an escape). Decoding is to be seen as something necessary for the selective contraction of the future. It's what would precede the taking of a survey of a decodified present and affirming that which you would have repeat for eternity (to use Nietzschean terms for a recodification).
Markets (to bring in the other term they mention in this passage) for them equally are seen as tools. They connect, they have the capacity to decode and to deterritorialize societies. Everything in this machinic universe is evaluated or is to be evaluated from it's potential from breaking us free from existing forms of exploitations and cruelties.
So to summarize, "subversive potential" is a way of describing only the fact that desire is under continual transformation and States are forced to ever new limits through capitalist production... ["For perhaps the flows are not yet deterritorialized enough, not decoded enough"...]. Life as we know it is what bodies have a difficulty unlearning or moving beyond (you have to connect this to his work on Bergson and memory and Hume and habit but equally all of his work on Institutions). Subversive potential does not equate to "revolutionary" in a subjectively political sense. The politics of what happens under these subversions of desire and axioms are defined by what we do with the new doors that are continually opened. What use do we make of new tools and landscapes of being?
