To those that know Marx's Capital, would this sound like a good basic answer (I would have to elaborate)?

Question

Capital's passage in question:

Just as a Manchester family of factory workers in which the children stand in a relation of exchange to their parents and pay board and lodging to them does not represent the customary economic organisation of the family, so the system of modern private exchange does not, in general, represent the spontaneously evolved economy of societies.

Question: Why did working class families in Manchester force their children to pay for room and board?

Answer: Quite simply, the children were recieving more than giving (like freeloaders of today). Today, we have our children perform chores in exchange for their room and board, but in the 1800's children were allowed to work in the factories along side adults and therfore should contribute equally to the household. That increases their use-value in the family unit.

Am I off the mark of how a Marxist would answer the question?

Answer 1

Although I'm not perfectly familiar with Marx's Capital but your answer really conceptually fits his views.