I think the us v.s. them aspect of this is all in your head. We all like working on our hobbies, but unless we're able to get paid for it that's all they'll ever be.
Clojure has been trying to solve this problem for a while (see http://clojure.org/funding). If they're able to make something like this work then I think that's great. It's still an open source project, it's not like they'll be rejecting patches because they come from the wrong people.
It just means that more people can do Clojure for a living, which'll improve the language itself and the platform for everyone.
You may have missed my point. I take time to offer supported criticism because I want to see Clojure succeed. To succeed, Clojure must keep the community or there is no business in supporting the language.
Some language comparisons: Perl got where it is on the strength of its community which now supports many language-focused businesses. Community is also cited as one of the strengths of Python and Ruby which also have associated thriving businesses. Community is regularly cited as a problem with LISP (wait, wait, hold the spears - I'm a LISPer too!). PTL Scheme is the exception that seems to prove the rule - good community there.
Languages and tools do prosper and my point here is to highlight how they do so by building a community and what Clojure's "core" risk through making this distinction.
I see I may initiate a language dispute and that is not my intention. Other projects just seem the best source of supporting comparisons.