Growth and stability of necessities aren't mutually required.
You can have controlled or even negative growth and plenty of food and necessities.
Imagine it this way: what if we made it completely illegal to make party favors and other single-use items with no benefit? Growth would lower, but food production isn't hurt in the slightest, and other jobs can exist.
Yep, Marx predicted this actually. A huge portion of Marx's literature is even more relevant today than ever before.
The best product should not be what's most popular in Capitalism, what's profitable to produce is what's most profitable. With tons of competition, you just have competing levels of automation, corner cutting, and exploitation.
Competition and markets in general are the cause of enshittification.
Competition doesn't lead to innovation in improving people's lives, but company profits. See: enshittification.
In theory, yes, though the number of shares required to go against the Chaebol is just not feasible. There's a reason South Korea specifically has a word for a specific group of Billionaire Capitalists, they are essentially untouchable.
You actually can't, Samsung is owned and run by Chaebol. It's essentially the same family at the top, with no sign of their power shifting.
The truly unpopular opinion is the one you're pretending is popular, people aren't advocating for immediate replacement without building up green energy and replacing it entirely.