People talk about political systems as if you simply choose one and implement it - communism, democracy, anarchy, socialism, fascism, marxism etc.
However this misses the very simple point that any system can only work in one of two ways - firstly by consent, where something is engrained enough in human nature that it happens and works all by itself; secondly by force, where a greater power makes people work/live in a particular way. These are the only options - voluntary or involuntary.
Now, not every part of an involuntary system will require coercion. People will naturally do what they need to do to survive, the coercion may just be in making them give up part of what they have created, or some similar event.
If a system operates on consent, its participants may freely choose any form of government - and as there is no coercion may drop out of that system whenever they please. Many communes style communities operate like this already - you are always free to leave with your belongings.
A system that you are not allowed to drop out of is (by definion) coercive - people are not allowed to leave, they are obliged (by force) to comply. The people enforcing compliance may structure their system how ever they please and give it any name they want - and as long as they do not over-reach themselves and suffer a revolution they can do as they please.
Some people are foolish and think that political systems exist outside this model, 'we live in a democracy' they may say - the only question you need ask is 'can you leave it?' - if the answer is 'no' then you live in a coercive system that those wielding the power have chosen to present to you in that way. In practice your vote has as much influence/power as the fact you breathe the same air as those in power.
The most powerful coercive systems are where those in power mange to get the public to do the coercion for them - if you are ever attacked for questioning the system, you know that you are living in such a system. You question but are told 'this is a democracy, you have your say, now shut up and get on with it'.
The most aggressive non-violent threat to a questioner is to suggest that they should have no land to live on - that they should sacrifice what they currently own and go and live elsewhere - starting (presumably) from scratch.
Changing they way things are run is not a quick or easy job - you have to have, and present, a convincing case that the human mind can accept and clearly see as better - so much better that those currently in power either accept it too, or face a revolution by those who do.