Dennis, I tend to agree with you here and was wrong to say "at least Hunter S. Thompson didn't do this." (I'd guess Thompson has more of a problem with fame and therefore more of a problem with using his fame to make money. But can you imagine Thompson selling some cheesy poofs or something?) Admittedly I haven't spent too much time thinking on the issue and therefore would go the libertarian route and have no problem with Burroughs taking their money and screwing 'em. The question becomes how much is Burroughs screwing 'em. And for that matter, who exactly is "'em"?
Here's the relevant paragraphs from Thomas Frank's "Why Johnny Can't Dissent" (Baffler #6, 1995) which I believe also can be found in Commodify Your Dissent:
Other legendary exponents of the countercultural idea have been more fortunate. William S. Burroughs, for example, appears in a television spot for the Nike corporation. But so openly does the commercial flaunt the confluence of capital and counterculture that it has aroused considerable criticism. Writing in the _Village Voice_, Leslie Savan wonders what it means when a Beat goes Bad. The contradiction between Burroughs's writings and the faceless corporate entity for which he is now pushing product is so vast, she believes, that one can do little more than marvel at the digestive powers of capital. "Now the realization that *nothing* threatens the system has freed advertising to exploit even the most marginal elements of society," Savan observes. "In fact, being hip is no longer quite enough - better the pitchman be 'underground.'" While Burroughs's manager insists, as all future Cultural Studies treatments of the ad will also insist, that Burroughs's presence makes the commercial "deeply subversive" - "I hate to repeat the usual mantra, but you know, homosexual drug addict, manslaughter, accidental homicide" - Savan wonders whether, in fact, it is Burroughs who has been assimilated by corporate America. "The problem comes," she writes, "in how easily any idea, deed, or image can become part of the sponsored world."
The most startling revelation to emerge from the Burroughs/Nike partnership is not that corporate America has overwhelmed its cultural foes or that Burroughs can somehow remain "subversive" through it all, but the complete lack of dissonance between the two sides. Of course Burroughs is not "subversive," but neither has he "sold out": his ravings are no longer appreciably different from the official folklore of American business. As expertly as he once bayoneted American proprieties, as stridently as he once proclaimed himself beyond the laws of man and God, Burroughs is today a respected ideologue of the Information Age. His writings are boardroom favorites, his dark nihilistic burpings the happy homilies of the new corporate faith. [end] --------------------------- In any event the only way you can really screw the system is via a mass political movement.