A surprisingly powerful piece with unique and exemplary viewpoints that are well defended. It's no wonder Gandhi and Dr. MLK Jr. took so much inspiration for their beliefs and movements from this book.
I do have some gripes with some inconsistencies (most specifically regarding the relationship between Christianity and state), as well as constantly repeating the same point over and over for 5 pages, retold in a different manner.
Lastly, this book would've aged remarkably, nearly perfectly, in the first 40 years since its release, but in the modern day, ideas about the progress of humanity, weapons of war, civil rights, and technology have not aged all to well.
For a philosophy book, a good read, but unless you are seeking this book in particular, it is hard to recommend.

"The Kingdom of God is Within You" is at once flawed and necessary, a critical look at how human institutions have interpreted (or misinterpreted) the Gospel message.

In it, Tolstoy focuses on what's perhaps Jesus' most often overlooked statement--the admonishment to offer no resistance to evil. It's an admirable task, to take a clear look at a statement that many pretend is blurry, to simplify a message that is complicated in spite of its clarity. And Tolstoy's passion and originality make for an unforgettable read, even as his sweeping generalizations make it easy to put down in frustration.

He claims, for instance, that there are only three ways to view life--the animal, the pagan, and the divine. In the former, one is only looking for fulfillment of one's own desires; most societies recognize this as potentially harmful, and set out laws so as to corral the human animal. But, as Tolstoy puts it, this still leads to allegiance to "the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation," and that ultimately leads to conflict. The answer, as he sees it, is for human society to keep evolving towards the divine ideal set down in the Gospels, wherein one treats everyone well, regardless of (and even in spite of) their past behavior.

In looking at the middle level--that of human society--Tolstoy latches on to something Chairman Mao would later express far more cynically: political power ultimately rests on force. Laws that aren't enforced are basically just suggestions, so no matter how noble-minded the government, or how good its intentions, it ultimately must either use or threaten violence--the very word "enforcement" acknowledges this. So, for instance, pacifists who are waiting for governments to renounce the use of war will be waiting forever. As Tolstoy points out, "One might as well suggest to merchants and bankers that they should sell nothing for a greater price than they gave for it, should undertake the distribution of wealth for no profit, and should abolish money, as it would thus be rendered unnecessary." For war is but the extreme end of an ill-defined spectrum of force that starts at a much lower level, that of police and criminals; no government will (or can) ever give that up, so once one acknowledges and buys into the implicit relationship between political power and force, the question of its upper limit is a matter of quibbling. As Tolstoy mentions, only the weaker nations will suggest with a straight face that international matters should always be subject to arbitration. The stronger countries have nothing to gain by limiting themselves, and no one to compel them to do so.

Tolstoy uses Jesus' words amply. He points out that many believe that Jesus' teachings "can have no other significance than the one they attribute to it." But that only adds to the irony elsewhere, when he suggests that Jesus' words against resistance should be used as an excuse to stop paying taxes. Jesus was quite clearly of a different mindset, and said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" to those who asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes. The point's pretty simple, and it's one Tolstoy completely ignores: the government literally makes the money in the first place, so if the government wants part of their money back, that's their business.

Elsewhere, too, Tolstoy's generalizations invite argument, not agreement. "We do know by prolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals have been successfully suppressed by force," he says, obviously speaking without the benefit of World War II as a historical example, although one ends up surprised that he didn't make more reference to Napoleon's defeat, a topic which he obviously covered at far greater length elsewhere. A better argument, perhaps, would rely on the moral consequences to the victors, rather than the physical outcomes. (Perhaps the best illustration of this, oddly enough, was near the end of "Return of the Jedi," where Luke finds himself transformed by the mere act of resisting the Emperor.) It's hard to claim that resistance is wrong because it doesn't work; there are those who will always argue that it does. The bigger issue, perhaps, is that it makes you similar to what you're resisting.

Tolstoy's long-winded. He departs from the Gospel message in at least one key regard. He relies on evidence for some assertions but also makes plenty of unsupported allegations and blanket generalizations. (Some of these do seem oddly timeless and apropos of our current age, as for instance when he says that scientists see Christianity "as a religion which has outlived its age" and that "[t]he significance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the Church, from unbelievers by Science.") Yet the many areas where he amplifies Jesus' teachings make for a thought-provoking read that also might cause some soul searching, whatever one's religious or political persuasion.

Banned for publication in Russia, this book was first published in Germany in 1894. The reason for its banning is for some reason not emphasized by many, which simply is that Tolstoy openly opposed organized religion, including his very own and Russia's official religion, the Greek Orthodox Church. Tolstoy's perspective is that the true and pure teachings of Christ are found in the bible and in its principles, not by traditions or clergy. In fact, Tolstoy argues that churches have become the chief obstacle against the teaching of Christ’s principles. Churchmen actually oppose Christianity by teaching their infallibility, and they have come to represent pride, violence, stagnation, and death. The Christian church is hypocritical because it preaches the principles of Jesus but does not follow them.

"The follower of Christ, whose service means an ever-growing understanding of his teaching, and an ever-closer fulfilment of it, in progress toward perfection, cannot, just because he is a follower of Christ, claim for himself or any other that he understands Christ's teaching fully and fulfils it. Still less can he claim this for any body of men."

Tolstoy shows ways in which the church enforces its traditions to justify its existence and legitimate the profession and salaries of priests, monks, and other churchmen. Here is his view on the traditions surrounding marriage that I found particularly amusing:

"If a man and woman want their physical union to be sanctified they must go to the church, put on metal crowns, drink certain potions, walk three times round a table to the sound of singing, and that then the physical union of a man and woman becomes sacred and altogether different from all other unions."

Tolstoy writes about the uselessness of international arbitration, treaties, and peace talks. He points out that, even though governments may occasionally support for these endeavours, it is executed half-heartedly at best. Governments are not at all interested in keeping the peace and when their sovereignty is threatened, all talks of peace are abandoned and replaced with actions of war.

"In the same way they pretend to support temperance societies, while they are living principally on the drunkenness of the people; and pretend to encourage education, when their whole strength is based on ignorance; and to support constitutional freedom, when their strength rests in the absence of freedom; end to be anxious for the improvement of the condition of the working classes, when their very existence depends on their oppression; and to support Christianity, when Christianity destroys all government."

His conclusion is that the church is filled with men who strive only to remain secure in their current positions by helping to keep the poor in their place and by supporting a government that in turn supports the Church. In this way the two organizations feed off each other at the expense of the suffrage of the common people.

The more talked about part of this work is that it is a key text for Tolstoyan proponents of nonviolence, of nonviolent resistance, and of the Christian anarchist movement. In 1908 Tolstoy wrote, and Gandhi read, A Letter to a Hindu, which outlines the notion that only by using love as a weapon through passive resistance could the native Indian people overthrow the colonial British Empire. This idea ultimately came to fruition through Gandhi's organization of nationwide nonviolent strikes and protests during the years 1918–1947. In 1909, Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy seeking advice and permission to republish A Letter to a Hindu in his native language, Gujarati. -Wikipedia

Conclusion:
Though I really do appreciate Tolstoy for his criticisms of organized religion and the government of his time, when Christianity is reduced, omitting the churches, priests and other churchmen, traditions and rituals then all your left with is the morality of Christianity. To some this reductionism is too much. To me personally, I feel I can fit right in provided that we do away with non-individual revelations as well. This feels more like a Christian-Deism though.

Further, I appreciate Tolstoy for his important influences for non-violent protests that worked rather successfully for Gandhi. When a population is oppressed by an authority but are not being systematically murdered, this type of protest can be really effective. On the other hand, Tolstoy's pacifism is too naive for the more aggressive of enemies. When a country is being invaded or a people are being killed, one doesn't simply surrender to slaughter and oppression. There are good reasons to fight and engage in war. Defending the lives and quality of life for those people of whom cannot defend themselves, is a good reason to fight. WWI and WWII are just two examples of this.

Tolstoy's philosophy seems to border somewhere between Kantian Moralism and Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics because he seems to imply that because a moral law implies a moral lawgiver (God), law and obligation are irrelevant in modern secular society. As such Kant's formulation of universalisability seems to apply but are founded in the dictates of the Christian God. The idea of Tolstoy following the first Categorical Imperative is further re-enforced in his book "Youth" where the protagonist, semi-autobiographical, argues that he is striving for morality though his faculties of reason. Kant believed that morality is the objective law of reason. Interestingly enough, however, Tolstoy criticized Kantian Moralism.

In short, though it has striking similarities to other philosophies, Tolstoy's moralism is somewhat of a contradiction and is probably best left in a category of it's own. This work is a great one not only for it's historical significance and influences but also for its thought provoking characteristics.

Mhatma Ghandi said of this book, "Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You overwhelmed me. It left an abiding impression on me. Before the independent thinking, profound morality and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me...seemed to pale into insignificance." This was lovingly written in the cover of the book when I picked it out of pile of books destined for recycling, where the hard covers would be ripped off and the pages put through the recycling bin. I could not toss this book. My brother (a professor of English studies) pointed out to me the geneology of its publication, how ever year of its reissuing was during a massive era of change (World War II and the civil rights movement.). I do love this book. I am a slow reader. It will be a slow arduous journey through this book, but I am certain it will be worth it.

Recommended by a friend. Just started it today.

I can't make up my mind whether I am in love with or outraged by Tolstoy's emphatically constructed case for pacifism. It makes me want to strangle the man.

UPDATE:
I skimmed over a lot of Tolstoy's polemics. I enjoyed his critiques of Christianity more than his case for pacifism. My caveat is personal: I prefer a more nuanced argument.

If you don't mind the polemic style, Tolstoy actually lays out a good case for pacifism especially based upon a Christian morality.

you will feel yourself better and more truth-loving after having read this.

"We are all brothers—and yet every morning a brother or a sister must empty the bedroom slops for me. We are all brothers, but every morning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such things, which my brothers and sisters have been wasting their health in manufacturing, and I enjoy these things and demand them. We are all brothers, yet I live by working in a bank, or mercantile house, or shop at making all goods dearer for my brothers. We are all brothers, but I live on a salary paid me for prosecuting, judging, and condemning the thief or the prostitute whose existence the whole tenor of my life tends to bring about, and who I know ought not to be punished but reformed. We are all brothers, but I live on the salary I gain by collecting taxes from needy laborers to be spent on the luxuries of the rich and idle. We are all brothers, but I take a stipend for preaching a false Christian religion, which I do not myself believe in, and which only serve's to hinder men from understanding true Christianity. I take a stipend as priest or bishop for deceiving men in the matter of the greatest importance to them. We are all brothers, but I will not give the poor the benefit of my educational, medical, or literary labors except for money. We are all brothers, yet I take a salary for being ready to commit murder, for teaching men to murder, or making firearms, gunpowder, or fortifications."

i would recommend for people who hate government and love jesus (but not in a FOX news way)

I deeply admire all of Tolstoy's writings, so when I found out that Gandhi named this book as his biggest influence, I felt forced to read it as well. Even though a good part of it seems a little hard to read, not applying anymore to our modern world, it is still a surprisingly revolutionary and refreshing interpretation of Christianity. I wasn't expecting anything like this, Tolstoy combines an ardent defense of the Christian principles, specially the non-resistance principle, with a ferocious criticism of all Churches, and he does so in a remarkably coherent and convincing way. I find that anyone interested in religion and morality would profit immensely from reading this. I certainly did.

Powerful message: there is nothing more hypocritical than conducting war in the name of government or religion

Profoundly spiritual yet down to earth in its implications as Tolstoy looks at the application of spiritual teachings to the current social order. A call to reconstruct our conceptions of society, governance, religion and the true significance of life. Not a page turner but is highly logical in its arguments and imbued with a plethora of cathartic insights.

It introduced the doctrine of non-resistance to evil to me, which is what I was looking for in this book. But it was a tough read overall. Tolstoy repeats himself way too much, there is no structure to the book and sometimes he makes some non-sensical generalizations. He did capture the hypocrisy of our age (political and spiritual) really well, which kept me going. Modern day Pharisees the lot of us.

He did foresee the start of WW I by a couple of decades at least, by realizing the danger and stupidity of the arms race of the European powers and the complicated mesh of alliances and secret deals. But he was no prophet - on a larger timescale his guesses all proved incorrect.

Трактат раскрыл мне глаза на многие вещи. Никогда не задумывался над тем, что государство — форма насилия над человеком. Но теперь непонятно, как я не замечал этого раньше. Приводятся аргументы, почему и как это так, и альтернатива. Нашёл здесь для себя много освобождающих пониманий.