Corporatitis theory is the theory that the impersonal procedural rules by which corporations are governed can reproduce and evolve like computer viruses, making the corporations act as survival machines for the procedural rules (similar to viruses being survival machines for their genes) and not as tools for any kind of power wielded by corporate "managers" as physical individuals. This has an Occam-simplicity similar to the theory of simple unintentional repression of science but differs from it by having a different mechanism of how intelligent life is repressed (by stupid institutions rather than by stupid physical individuals).
Similarities and differences between corporations and biological viruses
This theory predicts that corporations should have changed over time. The very fact that the corporations are a much more recent phenomenon than biological life also means that the theory predicts differences in what is possible for biological life that must be long-term viable compared to corporations that may simply not have reached an inevitable collapse of a non-viable arrangement of information quite yet. For example, the hundreds of de novo mutations that every child have that is not inherited from either parent was the reason why the existence of junk DNA was predicted, as there would be no chance for selection to keep up with the mutations if all that DNA, or even a large fraction of it, was functional. Corporations, being a much more recent phenomenon and starting with technology invented by intelligent life before corporatitis, are not bound by such limitations in the short run provided that they are degenerating towards a collapse. For a corporation that is not viable in the long run, it is possible in the short run to have an amount of procedural rules for decision-making that exceeds the maximum amount of functional genetic material in an evolved and viable organism. While such corporations are bound to break down, they are still subject to selection for procedural rules that delay the collapse of the corporation in such a way that corporations that have not yet collapsed outlast those that have. This selection is not constrained by how severe the long-term effects are as this selection is blind.
Another difference between biological organisms and corporations is that of metabolism. While cities follow the same correlation between size and activity as the correlation between size and metabolism in biological organisms, there is no such correlation between size and activity of corporations. There is, however, a type of "biological" entity that has genetic material and reproduces without having any metabolism, and that is viruses. So the theory that corporations are virus-like pieces of code without any equivalent of their own metabolism can explain this difference between cities and corporations. This theory makes a number of predictions.
One of them is that since corporations lack metabolism and only use the metabolism of other entities, they are not under the energy-saving selection that affects living organisms and cities, just like viruses can cause their host organisms to waste energy even though such a waste of energy would not evolve by selection on the organism. This in turn implies that corporate decision-making rules are not subject to the selection against wasteful redundant processing steps that is evolutionary anti-psychology's argument against the claim that biological organisms are predisposed to rationalize decisions which would waste energy on redundant rationalization of the same actions that would have been made anyway, so even if no biological organism evolved to rationalize anything corporations may still be memetically (but not genetically) selected for quasi-rationalization in the corporate rules (but not in the brains of individuals).
Another prediction is that since corporate mamagement is an infectious agent and not a result of the technological complexity of the cities themselves, it is possible to have technological cities after the end of corporations without anything like corporate management arising by itself again. That corporate management is not an inevitable consequence of technologically complex cities for the same reason as flu viruses are not an inevitable consequence of anatomically complex airways.
Corporations disposing their "managers"
With corporate procedural rules at the controls, corporations are under selection to scandalize and possibly demonize their own individual "managers" as physical "persons" as a way of diverting scandals from the corporation as an impersonal system. This serves both to deter many individuals in the corporation that fill functions that maintain it from leaving the company by the risk of getting caught if they leave it, and disposing of inconvenient physical individuals without resistance from useful idiot activists that falsely believe that they fight oppression when they are in fact maintaining corporations by acting on the blackmail preventing defection by many individuals in the corporation. This is similar to how the International Crime Court effectively supports regimes that practise torture by punishing individuals who have obeyed orders to torture prisoners, thus deterring from defections and helping the regimes to keep their henchmen under blackmail as well as giving the regimes incentives to order torture as a way to get something to blackmail the henchmen ordered to do it even if it is not effective for the alleged purpose of getting truthful confessions. The fact that Big Pharma have focused on cures for specific diseases and ignored ageing for a very long time is explainable by the theory that corporatitis struck medical companies as early as the 1800s, making the corporations run by rules that ignored the longevity and self-preservation of their very managers. It also explains why deriviatives of regulations on animal testing have had such a long time to evolve into tools for scandalizing physical persons.
The theory that corporations are mechanically run by impersonally self-preserving rules predict that corporations would promote confusion of lack of conscious intention with "innocence" as a way of averting activism from the corporations as legal persons and their rules. The claim that "humans evolved to be more upset by intentional harming of others than by unintentional harming of others" makes no evolutionary sense within the context of the claim that "humans are uniquely capable of intentionally hurting others", since selective punishment of individuals with certain characteristics select against said characteristics and not for them. Just like a group of animals that punished individuals with many stripes in their fur more severely for the same thing than individuals with few stripes would evolve fewer and not more stripes, human or proto-human ancestors would (if they punished individuals more capable of intention more severely for the same actions) evolve less (not more) capacity for intention than related primates that did not selectively punish intentional individuals.
But the corporatitis virus (a meme virus that has neither DNA nor RNA) benefits from directing punishment at physical individuals and arbitrarily demarcated groups of physical individuals instead of at the corporations themselves. The theory that a claim of lack of intention being "innocent" is part of that corporatitic symptom explains why corporations promote myths of individual corporate "managers" as intentionally scheming, even though attempts to talk to them conducted during meetups before the corona restrictions show that corporate managers that ask "what color should it have?" instead of thinking of how things should work lack any insight of the consequences of making industry dependent on increasing numbers of parts which instead corresponds to what the theory that a corporate "manager" is really no more aware of the consequences of its actions than, say, a lion predicts.
It also explains why the view of beings not labelled as "human" or (even falsely) alleged to be aware of the consequences of their actions as being "innocent creatures" is so strongly associated with worldviews that want to replace corporate "managers" by arbitrary group criteria without touching the corporations beyond who "manages" them. For example, nazism which wanted to completely replace jews with "aryans" as corporate "managers" promoted the idea of animals as "innnocent", just as does feminism which wants to partly replace men with women as corporate "managers". While the difference between total and partial replacement and whether or not actual killing ensues may seem like a big deal for the targeted individuals, it matters less to the corporations which still have the opportunity to remove any given individual "manager" in the removal quota classification even if they do not remove them all. Corporatitis theory explains the link as a result of corporate diversion of action to aim it at physical individuals instead of the corporate "computer" virus code. The theory holds that it is really the myth of the corporations as legal persons being "innocent" in themselves that matters to the corporatitis virus, which then spills over onto other entities said to lack "agency", with an additional prediction that such spill-over may itself memetically "evolve" into another tool for corporate tyranny by promoting "shame of being human" instead of actions against corporations as a response to destruction of the environment as well as hiding corporate power from those fooled into believing that "unintentional equals innocent" by claiming that discrimination against all beings called "human" is somehow not discrimination because it also punishes corporate "managers" (read: as physical individuals).
"Nature versus nurture" questions miss the point
The entire question of "nature versus nurture" applied to corporate management, including the claim that "it is a combination of both" and straw men alleging critics to be either "biological determinists" or "environmental determinists" (sometimes applying both labels to the exact same criticism), falsely assumes that corporate management is somehow dictated by the characters of corporate "managers" as physical perons and misframing the question to one of how such a "character" came into place. While corporatitis theory is really about corporations being run by memetic rules in corporate management as a system that specifically uses its corporate "managers" as puppets when they are at work. It has nothing to do with whether or not the corporate "managers" as individuals really want to do what they are doing and it has nothing to do with what they do in their spare time, so it is neither nature nor nurture in the upbringing sense but specific rules about what to do at work, not even extended nurture into adulthood and niche construction influenced by genes since the "managers" have no choice of what to do at work.
Corporations evolving to misguide criticism
The theory of corporate management rules undergoing memetic evolution through selection predicts that corporations would evolve to direct criticism of what the corporations are doing at the physical persons in their management and not at the corporations as legal persons. In that way, the corporations preserve their corporate management rules, their equivalent of genes. One way to do so is to give a false appearance of sections of the corporation with "managers" classified into one identity political category being more oppressive than those referred to as more "diverse". The corporate management rules are, according to this theory, selected to outsource violent and/or illegal parts of corporate activity to sections deemed less "diverse" as a way to direct actions against it towards replacing physical persons, and then treadmill new classifications that deem some sections to which they later outsource essentially the same activity (possibly with some cosmetic changes of how victims are selected) to sectors that are reclassified from "diverse" to "non-diverse" by making up new ways to classify physical persons until they find something to classify subsidiary managements as "non-diverse" for.
Misguided economical stimulation
Even though corporations apparently accept paying large amounts of money for the writing of articles that reject the concept of corporate moral agency, corporations being fined is apparently fine as long as governments put money into the corporations when the corporation is close to going broke which makes the fines incapable of selecting against any pieces of corporate management rule code. But God forbid that corporations are punished in a way that actually eliminates systems of corporate management. The fact that the establishment's articles reject the notion of corporate moral agency but accept the concept of corporate property rights is also suspicious. What entity with a physical body of any species whatsoever would they ever grant the right to own property without assigning any moral agency? None. At most you can find articles assigning right to life and health to physical individuals deemed to lack moral agency, but never right to property without moral agency. So why is that combo deemed just fine for corporations by the establishment, when it is not deemed fine for anything other than corporations by it?
It is not only that the articles are covered in silly allegations of "confusing the words corporate personhood with moral agency" (which is odd when presented by psychologists claiming to reject the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as silly a contradiction as when Steven Pinker claimed that the English language's use of the word sex for both intercourse and male/female classification but a separate word for gender causes denial of biological sex differences despite his purported rejection of the idea that language massively shapes thought and ignoring the fact that the Swedish language has separate words for intercourse and male/female classification but not separate words for male/female classification and gender yet Sweden is full of feminism) and under the word quibble contains arguments of corporations as legal persons not being "accountable" because they are not aware of their actions (making it suspiciously similar to animal rights talk about "innocent animals" which may be a puppet idea for corporations). It is also that the redisribution of money by fining corporations and then bailing them out "rescues" corporate management systems but not the city tissues of civilization under corporate control. Sometimes even fines paid by "managers" as physical persons are used by autohorities to afford giving money to the corporations as legal persons.
That is, fined corporations can take the money by removing resources from the civilization-maintaining activities under their "ownership" without maintaining them and then using the money to pay the fines. When governments "rescue" the corporations by "economical stimulation" they put the money into the corporate management which can then use it to buy activities instead of actually building them, meaning that "rescuing" corporations does not rescue the activities that maintain civilization but instead maintains entities that break said activities down. The virus-like corporate management gets "rescued" while the organism-like and metabolizing city tissues of civilization only gets a more severe infection, until there are no city tissues left and the corporations are bound to go down like a virus no longer being able to reproduce because it has killed their hosts. Don't let corporate management happen the next time civilization is rebuilt. Or, given that no global control can be kept in a post-apocalyptic world (which may be good for getting rid of corporate control) at least keep some rebooting city-states in the aftermath free from it and defend them from reinfection of corporatitis with all the technological advantages of an industry not infected by corporations.
One idea is to keep the rebooting technology possible to pick apart and recombine into new gadgets so that brains capable of investigating what the things really do keep an advantage as to control over technology, avoiding the problem of non-sapient entities gaining equal access to opaque technology that cannot be picked apart without breaking the parts or making them impossible to recombine.