The \subjclass command is defined in the ams class files, that is, it is defined in amsart.cls and amsbook.cls etc. In other words, it is not something you load from a package.
It essentially just sets a footnote. So you can follow this answer here to get a footnote without a marker, and just put in as the footnote text
\textup{2000} \textit{Mathematics Subject Classification}: \textup{<insert MSC here>}
Example:
\documentclass{scrartcl}
\makeatletter
\def\blfootnote{\gdef\@thefnmark{}\@footnotetext}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\blfootnote{\textup{2000} \textit{Mathematics Subject Classification}:
code}
\end{document}
Which outputs on the bottom of the page:

Edit: It seems that the OP uses a different option for the presentation of the footnotes: I generally just use superscripts, but it appears that the OP may prefer numbers followed by a parenthesis. Here's a version that would allow that:
\documentclass{scrartcl}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\newcommand\blfootnote[1]{%
\begingroup
\renewcommand\thefootnote{}\footnote{#1}%
\addtocounter{footnote}{-1}%
\endgroup
}
\deffootnote{0em}{1.6em}{\expandafter\ifdefempty\expandafter{\thefootnotemark}{}{\thefootnotemark)\enskip}}
\begin{document}
\blfootnote{\textup{2000} \textit{Mathematics Subject Classification}:
code}
\footnote{Normal footnote}
\end{document}
In this version etoolbox is used to conditionally set the parenthesis mark depending on whether \thefootnotemark is empty or not (the \expandafters are just kludged-together hacks since \ifdefempty doesn't expand all the way down, and it appears that \thefootnotemark expands to a macro which expands to a macro which expands to the empty string, so without the \expandafter the test fails). The output looks like this:

To further customise and tune using the \deffootnote command, please see the KOMA script guide.
\deffootnoteand\deffootnotemark? KOMA controls the presentation of footnotes in two different places, one is via\thefootnotemarkwhich the code I gave suppresses, the other is via the formatting options in\deffootnote. It is possible that somewhere in your workflow the footnote presentation is redefined so that the footnote definition is something like\thefootnotemark), which will cause you to see what you saw. – Willie Wong Nov 27 '13 at 13:10