I don't really know much about it other than I've heard people say they don't like Leninists. But like...why? The worker soviets are literally councils that served essentially the same function as what council communists want, but with the party serving as a vector for that organization.
Also, Lenin frequently brings up the Paris Communé when discussing the soviet revolutionary model. He talks specifically about how the initial revolution creates a bourgeois state "without bourgeoisie" and eventually withers away into what you'd call council communism.
Like council communism is just the "higher stage" of communism (or the communist stage of socialism) right? The model exists under Leninist organization and the contradiction of Leninism is the political/bureaucratic elite that isn't the workers. The difference between this state and the bourgeois state is that its really fucking weak usually. Like think about the "fall of communism", it was easily toppled, but instead of getting council communism (which is what the workers would have done if left to their own devices) they reverted to capitalism due to massive intervention of the existing well armed and funded capitalist powers.
Some of that comes off as pure ideology, I agree that the USSR had its problems, and the Russian revolution was absolutely a lucky moment for the workers seizing an opportunity presented in the wake of an imperialist war, but I'd also argue that Lenin's revolutionary tactics worked in a broad range of different struggles all over the world.
Anyone that sees a state like the USSR as an end goal is not understanding what it is. It was and was always meant to be a step in the right direction. The form it took wasn't the form it wanted to, but the form it was forced to take. Imperial interventionism and internal reaction are things that require a very organized and bureaucracratic state to resist which is why we see that form of state continue to pop up all over the place in almost every successful leftist revolution.
The proletarian revolution as you're describing it is something that requires mass education and industrialization/infrastructure. Something that most revolutionary states of the 20th century did not have. Right now the most likely candidate for something like what you're describing would be China as it has a massive population that is becoming more proletarianized and educated by the day. All the "backwater" revolutions that took on a bureaucratic form are evolving into a stage of production that more closely resembles that of the industrialized West, but without the baggage that those nations carry.
That's what the Belt & Road would be for. For the Marxists the hope would be that many of those colonized nations will turn to Communism with workers seeing Communist China as their benefactor and shining city on the hill by 2050.
If China continues on a Socialist path it would be a massive propaganda win as its cybernetic economy makes a clearer distinction from capitalism.