Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).

and anarchist scholarship

In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.

Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?

Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.

"György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine."

Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?

On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist

I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor.

Lenin and not Lukács

I studied Lenin in school.

I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.