I would like to add that labour aristocracy ("Arbeiter_innenaristokrat_innen") is a term that has plenty of history. It got a tradition before Lenin's Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, it got a new finding of the term in it (which if you read it reduced, is every core worker benefits from imperialism - even in a sloppy reading as every single individual worker, instead of structurally by higher wages, hegemony etc.). After Lenin's establishment of the term there was also an evolution of the term in parallel paths which are not integratable (one is the Stalinist tradition of it used internally in the Soviet Union).

The reading of the term here is in my opinion a sloppy populist variation of a mix of a close readin gof Lenin's term with a lot of Stalinist sloppyness in it.

The other general thing I would like to add is that while I support longer analysis the transfer of theoretical frameworks to specific historical settings, events and groups is often not as easy as one thinks and without lot of data might lead to misunderstandings. In this situation the view of BLM is skewed since theoretical means are stretched beyond their usefulness and there is not even a goal to separate what exactly is going on.