That's very different from a comment which suggests he doesn't realize it's an allegory.

The comment directly says it's not a good analogy. Complaining that they didn't specifically say "allegory" is really nitpicky. The terms are very close and overlap.

If someone says Animal Farm is a good story, but it wouldn't work if the animals were humans, I would say they didn't get the message.

Depends on what reason they gave. If they misunderstand something about humanity, that's a great jumping point toward discussion.

But if they said "yes, those politics would happen in humans, but some of these other factors are more important toward the eventual outcome[...]" then that's perfectly compatible with understanding the story. And that's roughly what the earlier commenter did! They accepted the argument that jobs will go away, while saying the secondary and tertiary effects would be different.

Fair, I'm sure it doesn't seem like it but I really don't want to argue. We're obviously reading that comment differently.

Cheers.

Animal farm is a fictional story about humans disguised as animals. The horse allegory is a non-fictional story about the downfall of horses which are very much not human-like.

The horse allegory is a fictional story involving talking horses. It is hardly any more fictional than a symbolic retelling of communism spreading. Both are intended to prove a point, not accurately portray the details of history.