Tolstoy was not a philosopher per se, but his moral preaching, social criticism and vision of human reality had a great influence on men and women of his time (for example, this was the case with Ludwig Wittgenstein, Romain Rolland and, of course, Gandhi), and, most likely, represented a lost opportunity for what could have been a much more relevant change.

Between 1880 and 1910, when he was the most famous living writer in the world, the elderly Russian aristocrat preached what was then already called "Christian anarchism" and which he called merely "Christianity". It was something very similar to what the French scholar, atheist and ex-priest Ernest Renan had already formulated: Christianity as "pure religion". That is, a psychological formulation of a lifestyle based on benevolence: altruistic, anti-aggressive, empathetic and affective behavior based on a rational, emotionally internalized conception of the world. 

Something contrary to human nature? Not for believers, of course (a "believer" can actually believe anything). Nor for social observers of the time, because there was already evidence that human aggressiveness varies greatly from one culture to another, from one human environment to another (and nobody knows the limit of it). Socialism already existed, whose "Rousseaunian" ideological basis considered that once oppressive social institutions were liquidated (private property, social classes, patriarchy, religion... family?, nationalism?) the human being would return to natural harmony.

Christianity posed the human problem as a struggle between sin and virtue. Like the Buddhists, Stoics and Platonists, it is believed that certain cultural practices could lead to human perfection. Of course, in Tolstoy's time - as today - no Christian congregation preached moral perfection in a practical way: both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church limited themselves to providing a certain "spiritual consolation" through citizen integration into rituals and supernatural promises. Tolstoy undertook research into religion and moral perfectionism which led him to become interested in early Christianity, certain traditional pacifist Christian sects (such as the now famous Amish, but also the Hutterites and the Dukhobori) and the pacifist and liberal American evangelism derived from Quakerism.

Although he never publicly renounced the supernatural, his interest was focused on moral perfectionism from the point of view of pacifism and charity. He accepted atheists and never considered the Gospel to be the word of God or to be followed to the letter (the Quakers did not do this either).

Tolstoyan philosophy was based above all on mastering the passions, loving one's fellow man, non-resistance to evil (or "non-violence" according to his disciple Gandhi) and creating an egalitarian social order without any oppressive institution (without State or government, therefore). As he loved nature and distrusted technology, his ideal would have been a rural humanity of simple life, without poverty or wealth.

Looking at Tolstoyism with a certain perspective, we find a confusing heteronomy with mandates of pacifism, vegetarianism, chastity and detachment from material things. Upon Tolstoy's death in 1910, the movement quickly disappeared, swallowed up by the war madness of 1914 and the Russian revolution of 1917. Tolstoy's main collaborator in his movement, Vladimir Tcherkov, ended his life comfortably within the Soviet system. Gandhi was a step backwards: he was a politician (Tolstoy was anti-political), he was a nationalist (Tolstoy was anti-nationalist) and he was a deep believer in the traditions of the supernatural (Tolstoy was, at best, a "deist"). And, in any case, Gandhi also failed to create a harmonious, non-authoritarian social alternative based on his beliefs in pacifism and charity.

Could it have been different?

The failure of Tolstoyism was due to the practical failure of Tolstoyism as a way of life. Although it inspired prosocial patterns of conduct such as charity (in accordance with the mandate of love and the detachment from material goods), pacifism, vegetarianism and life in nature, it could not generate a viable social model. And we have the testimony that the "Tolstoyan communities" had the same failure as other attempts at "utopian socialism" of the time. And it is surprising that Tolstoyism, despite its emphasis on evangelical behavioral values such as love and humility, did not manage to create a style of prosocial coexistence, a model of behavioral virtue in accordance with such well-known markers.
It could not then be the "pure religion" of which Ernest Renan wrote.
 

While we do not know much about how Tolstoyan communities were run, we do know that the movement's propaganda texts emphasized not so much heteronomous ethical mandates (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) but rather the psychological aptitude of benevolence. This is in keeping with the Gospel and the use of spiritual qualities that under names like "Grace," "Holy Spirit," or "Charity" seem to refer to internalized emotional patterns.

We will probably never know whether those who had the ability to influence what was already a very popular ideological movement at the time debated such issues. Everything revolved around the enormous fame of the Russian writer and he never seemed especially interested in leading a social movement but rather in inspiring ethical values in which he believed.

At least it was shown that rational ideals based on altruistic, benevolent, and pacifist principles could spread quickly and that many people were willing to commit themselves to such ideals. They lacked a coherent ideology and never considered drawing on the resources of the social sciences. Psychology and anthropology were just emerging at the time, although they did have the experience of religious movements which, for better or worse, did not always fail in their community initiatives, as did the utopian socialists.