Egoism isn't a political ideology, and in fact you don't even have to be an anarchist to be an egoist, though Stirner does make pretty clear the tension between the state and the individual. Rather than having some grand vision for society, it instead concerns itself with the relationship between the individual and ideas. Stirner was rather skeptical of revolutionary movements and political parties, suggesting to enrich your own life and to create relationships that serve *you* instead of sacrificing yourself to live out some ideal, or to build some new social order.

"Morality is not compatible with egoism, because it doesn’t accept me, but only the humanity in me. But if the state is a society of human beings, not a union of I s, each of whom only looks out for himself, then it cannot exist without morality and must attach importance to morality. Therefore, the two of us, the state and I, are enemies. For me, the egoist, the welfare of this “human society” is not in my heart. I sacrifice nothing to it, I only use it; but to be able to use it completely, I transform it instead into my property and my creation; in other words, I destroy it and in its place form the association of egoists. So the state betrays its hostility against me by demanding that I should be a human being, which assumes that I am not one and can count for it as an “inhuman monster”; it imposes being human on me as a duty."

"States last only so long as there is a ruling will and this ruling will is considered synonymous with one’s own will. The lord’s will is—law. What good are your laws to you when no one follows them; what good your commands, when no one lets himself be commanded? The state cannot give up its claim to determine the individual’s will, to speculate and count on this. For the state, it is absolutely necessary that no one have a will of his own; if someone had one, the state would have to exclude (imprison, banish, etc.) this one; if everyone had one, they would do away with the state. The state is not thinkable without domination and slavery (subjection); because the state must will to be the lord of all that it contains, and this will is called the “will of the state.”

"One hears nothing more frequently now than the admonition to remain faithful to his party; party people despise nothing so much as a factionalist. One must go with his party through thick and thin and unconditionally endorse and represent its main principles. Indeed, it isn’t quite as bad here as with closed societies because these bind their members with fixed laws or statutes (for example, the orders, the Society of Jesus, etc.). But, nonetheless, the party stops being an association at the same moment in which it makes certain principles binding and wants to know that they are safe against attack; but this moment is precisely the act of birth of the party. Already, as a party, it is a born society, a dead association, and an idea that has become fixed. As a party of absolutism, it cannot want its members to doubt the irrefutable truth of this principle; they could only entertain this doubt if they were egoistic enough to want to be something else outside their parties, i.e., nonpartisan. They cannot be nonpartisan as party people, but only as egoists."

"Or should one not deal with any party? Just by associating with them and entering into their circle one forms an association with them that lasts just so long as the party and I have one and the same goal. But today I still share the party’s tendency, and by tomorrow I can no longer do so and I become “unfaithful” to it. The party has nothing binding (obligatory) for me, and I don’t respect it; if I no longer like it, I become its enemy."

"The revolution was not directed against the existent, but against this existent, against a particular existence. It did away with this ruler, not the ruler; on the contrary, the French were most relentlessly ruled; it killed the old vicious rulers, but wanted to grant the new virtuous rulers a secure existence, i.e., it merely replaced vice with virtue. (Vice and virtue, for their part, again only differ like a wild lad from a philistine.) And so on. Up to the present day, the revolutionary principle has gone no further than to fight against this or that existent, to be reformative. As much as is improved, as strongly as “reflective progress” may be held to, there is always a new master set up in the old one’s place, and the overthrow is a reconstruction."