When MLs say, 'state', they have a specific, relational concept in mind. A state is authoritarian by definition. And it has class characteristics, as does every other concept.

There are no degrees of being authoritarian but rather a question of what the state uses that authority for. Which class exercises that authority?

This is also a materialist concept, not an idealist one. We look at states to understand what they are. We don't start by thinking about what a state could be or should be.

In a capitalist state, the authority is used to oppress workers. In a workers' state, the authority is used to oppress capitalists. Which class oppresses and which is oppressed?

In a similar sense, there are no degrees of liberty. The question is, whose liberties are granted and whose are denied?

MLs reject relativism. There is only dialectical and historical materialism for us. The links posted by Non-Diagetic Screams would be a good place to start to see where we're coming from. Otherwise you might find it a bit hostile here as we might be talking at cross-purposes. Especially if you use non-Marxist definitions and/or fail to explain the definitions you are using.

When the OP meme criticises anarchists for disagreeing with states in the abstract while accepting US State Department propaganda, anarchism reflects very little unity of thought and becomes another way of propping up the system it claims to despise.

When you say LGBT+ free zones, what do you mean? If this is a dig at China or Russia, it's doing almost exactly what the OP meme is criticising.

Even if there something to the claim (we can go through it if you provide sources), the point is that you could only say e.g. China has less liberty than e.g. the US if you did a full material comparison of the two states. I emphasise 'material', here, because liberal democracies, being grounded in idealism are very good at pretending one thing while they do another. This is partly because they have well developed and conscious ideological state apparatuses.

Any state should be criticised for shit LGBT practices and rules. The problem arises when using that criticism as a stick to beat one kind of state but not another. To declare that socialists and liberty don't go together is to be pro-capitalist and pro-unjust-heirarchy.

Being a westerner (you might not be) and criticising a workers' state over LGBT+ issues before or without criticising whatever is happening in Florida or almost any educational or employment or housing of healthcare setting or throughout western media is functionally to be a shill for the capitalists. And this is all before we get to broader questions of gendered and racial capitalism, in which a prime function of the state is to subjugate the entirety of the global south so that westerners stay wealthy.

A fortiori it means propping up authoritarian states who use their authority to oppress workers. And on an historical scale, there's no comparison with the amount of devastation and oppression coming from capitalist states.

“Liberty” under capitalism is freedom to exploit and hold private property. The police, as an instrument of class rule defend businesses (who probably have insurance anyway) from “rioters” who are simply expressing anger at the unjust killing by police. The people that are killed by police are almost always poor, having no property to compel the state to protect them. We can compare over a thousand dead at the hands of US police a year to only nineteen in the history of the People’s Republic of China. Which one is more “authoritarian?”